Here on kikizo.com have u read the review by adam doree.He said and i quote " this In a nutshell, Race Driver 2 has all the detail, gloss and special effects seen in Project Gotham Racing 2, if not more, but it runs at a rock solid sixty frames per second, something the Bizarre-developed title simply couldn' t muster." .Do u guy have eyes because the cars might look close to PGR2 but the levels are not even close to PGR2 they look as bad as GT4 or SEGA GT online.Have u seen the meshes they call trees N64 could do better then that.The rally part is bad as well RalliSport challenge 1 looked better then this game.

What wrong with PGR2 running at 30FPS???

All that talk about graphics in your post...and not a syllable about gameplay.

C' mon man, the game isn' t good until you play it and find out. I wasn' t sold on Ninja Gaiden until I had the controller in hand. Race Driver 2 does look darn good, though.

Gameplay is essential, graphics are a plus. Not the other way ' round.

He was saying that the game looks way better then PGR2.Which is FALSE.
So thats why i only talked about the graphix and not gameplay.

To make the game more fun the graphix have to be good and the gameplay has to be good.To me Graphix come first.Look at Wreckless(XBOX virsion not that crappy PS2 one) its one of the best looking games of all time.The gameplay is not that good but its still fun to play that game just because of the graphix.

Sorry man, but you' re the kind of " new age" gamer I just can' t stand. Graphics come first? Since when? I got news for you: Wreckless sucked, regardless of what it looked like.

This is an INTERACTIVE entertainment medium. These aren' t movies. If you want to put the controller down and stare, go right ahead. It ceases to become a video game at that point. You PLAY a game, not WATCH a game.

Let me ask you this:

We' re going to race. I have two vehicles. One looks exactly like a Ferrari but drives like a Pinto.

The other looks exactly like a Pinto, but drives like a Ferrari.

Which one do you pick?

I' d play Tetris long before I played Wreckless. I' d play just about ANY NES or SNES game before Wreckless. I have no interest a game that is entirely unplayable. Graphics matter, and always will. Anyone that says otherwise is just in denial.

But one rule will forever apply, so long as video games remain interactive:

Poor graphics and great gameplay will ALWAYS be superior to poor gameplay and great graphics. PERIOD.

So your saying if a company import a game from PS2 to XBOX then they dont need to improve the graphix.

So y dont companies make 2D games if graphix come second.Release PGR3 and make it look like Crusin USA.If Graphix dont count.Rerelease DOOM in its original form.Games that look like *** wont SELL.

I Play Tetris as well but that game is only Playable in 2D.

Wreckles is one of the best games.EXAMPLE look at PS2 virsion they got rid of all the effects and downgraded the graphix but improved gameplay and it was one of the worst games ever.


Why are companies like MS and SONY waste money on New Consoles.Why cant they just make a console like SNES or stick with the current console.So they wont have to waste any money on Graphic Cards.

Your a straight up PS2 Fan Boy because when Dreamcast was out u ppl were saying how good PS2 games looked and now your precious Playstation was imberessed by MS XBOX u saying graphix dont matter.

Kid, how old are you? I get the feeling that I' ve been playing games since before you were born.

Why do companies make games in 3D now and not 2D? Two reasons, one you were right about:

1. Because they CAN. People who love something always want to make it better and push the envelope. Game developers by trade love games, and work hard to make them the best they can be, largely because they' d want to make something THEY' D want to play.

2. Because, as you say, graphics sell. And why? Because in a materialistic society such as ours, where what' s on the surface seems to be vastly more important than underneath, appearance is deemed as most important. Style over substance, unfortunately.

Back when I was a kid, most all games had very similar-looking graphics. You know what made a game great? If it was FUN. Nobody was putting down the Nintendo controller to stare at the pictures. We played because they were entertaining; otherwise, it was crap.

Garbage like Enter the Matrix sells because of hype and graphics (and they weren' t even that great in that poor game). Wreckless is bad, with or without enhanced graphics. You want to watch a movie? Go right ahead.

Why do I get the feeling that you' ve never played the best games ever made from past generations? The Mario, Zelda, Metroid, and Final Fantasy series, Contra, Rygar, Ghouls ' n Ghosts, Sonic, Double Dragon, etc. Maybe you need to go back and play some, to truly understand what VIDEO GAME entertainment is.

Great graphics are a great bonus. Always have been. But if its unplayable, it' s not worth anybody' s time. Oh, and no system of this generation is " embarrassed" by another. They all have top games, and they' re all worth owning. The Xbox is the best graphically, but if graphics are all that matters, explain to me one thing-

Why does GameRankings list over 150 games at 80%+ for the PS2, and only a little more than HALF that many for Xbox? If graphics are all that matters, shouldn' t the numbers be reversed?

Well personally I' m very impressed with the look of the new Toca. PGR 2 is good but long term becomes boring and frustrating and the 30fps do affect the visual feeling of movement.

Handling also appeared consistent so I look forward to getting my hands on it soon.

Fathoms: Im in tears. That was beautiful. Seriously. I remember before all the " graphix" (for those who think they are too cool to use a " c" ) hype. You have made the most valid argument I' ve seen in a long time. Back when arcades were still around, NES, Sega Master system, Sega Genesis, and SNES were the consoles, most games looked almost exactly the same, and what determined what game you played was how fun it was. As for Enter the Matrix, more of hype, even the graphics sucked on that half-programmed pile of (add and explicitive that comes from the back)

Funny thing is, I' ve been playing Super Mario 3, Metroid Prime: Zero Mission and Mario and Luigi Superstar saga. None of those could be said to have the best graphics out today, yet I still play them. Not because the armor on Samus reflects the environment, or I can see scales on one of the Boss' s, but because the gameplay is solid.

Outside of that, I just got the Midway Classics (months ago, but, close enough). Nothing like a rousing round of Joust or Smash TV. Graphics on these games........suck. Gameplay is tremendous.

I know it' s your opinion, but (to me anyway), good graphics do not make a game more fun to play. A great example is Dragon' s Lair. That game looks astonishing (well it did years and years ago), but, I didn' t want to plug quarters into that game. The whole object was to move the joystick at the right time to the left, or right. That wasn' t fun. It just looked cool. The hook was the visuals. But, read any review of remakes of this game and see what they say. Graphics good, game bad.

EDIT:
Also, my brother loved PGR and PGR2. I have not been interested in either enought to put in 30 minutes of game time with either of them combined. The premise seemed frustrating to me. But, I will grant you that the cars were very shiny.

Why can' t there be the middle ground? I love games with outstanding gameplay AND graphics. I guess I may be the minority on this one but why argue about it. Gameplay is the core mechanics of the game. Without it, there is no game. Then again if graphics suck and have no flare what so ever the immersion factor drops. Pretty games get my attention better and make the game more engrossing. It doesn' t have to be straight up how amazing it looks, graphics can also encompass the enviromental mood along with other features that draw you into a game. The original Mario may look like " crap" now but it still has an engrossing and stylzed flare that just makes the game enjoyable in combination with the gameplay. There is nothing wrong with graphics or gameplay. They both need to be there in order to have a great game.

immortal: It' s the way of games; and the reason why I love this hobby. It' s not about staring at something shiny that' s dangled in front of you; it' s playing something that' s just a blast to play. I didn' t stare in awe at SMB because of the visuals; I stared because of what I could make that little guy do on the screen. As time went on and graphics got better and better, a heavier emphasis was placed on visuals, but it doesn' t matter. So long as this entertainment medium remains an interactive experience, the gameplay will forever be the part of a game that sucks us in and makes us part of something we never thought possible.

Rampage: Just one question- of the two, which do you think is necessary? Graphics or gameplay? Graphics are not necessary for a great game; they only ENHANCE the greatness of the gameplay (if applicable). Tetris can still hook me for hours at a time, and that has basically the most dated graphics there are. " Immersion" matters most in gameplay, not in graphics; again putting graphics a distant second, IMO.

I still prefer the middle ground. I like having the best of both worlds. Yes, Tetris is dated in the graphic are but you still need to see what you are doing. The gameplay isn' t anything special either though. Pretty much any basic coder can make the game. That' s the point, it' s still a good game with both crappy graphics and gameplay. Yes, I said the gameplay was crappy. It' s rotating a piece of a puzzle to fit it in a slot. That' s pitiful, but at the same time enormously entertaining and adicting. So if a game has outstanding graphics and basic gameply it has the potential to be a good game. The same way goes for highly detailed gameplay games with bland graphics, it still can be good. Some games with both good graphics and gameplay can be considered dull to if done incorrectly. It' s how all the elements of the game come together in the end that decide whether it is a good game or not, along with personal opinion.

I' m confused...how can a game have " crappy" gameplay, and still be addictive and fun to play? That doesn' t make much sense. You' re confusing " crappy" with " simple," which is a major mistake.

Here' s the thing- great graphics can never save a game with poor gameplay, because the game is interactive. However, a game with crap graphics CAN be saved by great gameplay...again, because it' s interactive. According to all math and statistics equations, this means, quite simply-

Gameplay > Graphics

Fathoms, why did you respond to me? I was merely agreeing with you. Graphics don' t matter, just ask me, a long time Smash TV and Contra fan. I do admit, graphics can add to an experience, like in Splinter Cell, but without the gameplay all that dynamic lighting wouldn' t mean a thing. The lighting did add to the stealth element, making it possible to hide and making many situations intense, but, as I said: if it wasn' t fun and challenging, it would have not mattered. Sadly, there are many " graphics whores" like Russian Mobster out there.

I replied to agree, immortal. I agreed 100%, and still agree. It was more like an add-on to my last post.

Fast response, lol, I misread your statement. Sorry bout that.

I don' t agree, and I will straight out say Tetris is absolute crap but still addicting. I play all sorts of games on my graphing calculator that are absolute crap in terms of both graphics and gameplay. YES CRAP. Very very crappy. You know what, I still play them and can get addicted. Ever played falldown? You are a ball that is falling and you want to dodge platforms because they bring you to the top of the screen and you die. All you do is move back and forth. Not only is it simple in terms of mechanics but it is also complete crap. CRAP!!! This same crappy game and me along wiyth my entire school addicted to the game all last year just to see who could get the higher score. Our collective GPAs dropped. This game is utter crap but everyone had it and wanted to be the best. Perfect example of crappy graphics and gameplay but still being addicing.

A game can be saved by graphics as well. The majority of the time though, games that have great graphics have the gameplay already quite solid. If someone was willing to put the time into having spectacular graphics there' s usually some great effort being put into both areas.

Rampage, you are really making zero sense here. Do we need an operational definition for the word " crap" ? If an INTERACTIVE GAME is " crap," then WHY ARE YOU PLAYING IT? How is it addictive? The wonderful graphics? The fantastic sound? The kick-ass presentation? The overwhelming depth? NO. You are playing Tetris because of one thing, and one thing only, and you know it. You seem to believe that a game is only as good as the sum of its parts. Not true. A game relies on only one thing: entertainment. If you are entertained, it succeeds. A game that you will play and play because it' s " addictive" cannot possibly be " crap" (although most every aspect of the game COULD be crap), because YOU' RE PLAYING IT, AND NOT PUTTING IT DOWN.

Let' s try this:

If Tetris wasn' t " addictive" and really was the most boring thing ever, do you really think the most sparkling graphics in the world could save it? Do the graphics make something " addictive?" Do the graphics keep you coming back for more? EVER? You said that good graphics can save a game, and I have never once seen that happen in 20+ years of gaming. Good gameplay saves a game with poor visuals every damn day...I can' t recall a time when a game with terrible gameplay was actually SAVED by great graphics.

Why? This is interactive. Not a DVD movie.

It wasn' t the gameplay, it was the competition. The game was crap.You aren' t always right yo know. Your own sig comes to mind.

This is just logic, Rampage. I AM right. Competition doesn' t exist without gameplay. NOTHING in games exists without gameplay. Period.