Support NeoGAF

[Kilrogg]

ROOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOAR.

You've been warned.

 

[Vdragoon]

Why would you need to apologize. Different view points. Graphics do not do much for me either once I get over the initial WOW phase.

 

[Tain]

For juggles, simply use a different visual cue system. For example, in the game, I assume (I haven't played GoW) the cue to attack again to keep an enemy juggled is that the character is falling and is in range to be hit. You hit him again and he goes back up. You could accomplish the same task by simply having a number on the enemy: for example, when you hit him "up", he will come back "down" in 4 seconds. Have a small clock on the person tick down from 4 to 3 to 2 to 1. You hit him again to keep him juggled at "1." We might call these "timing combos" instead of "juggles," but the effect is the same. In fact, juggles really are just timing combos, but they're given a coat of paint to make them seem like you're doing more than pressing A-B-D-A-A at specified times. In reality, that's all you're doing.

Ignoring the fact that the visual feedback to the player is completely different and will, by attaching a rhythm to things, make the juggle easier, what if the hardware is too weak to update the sprites and counters at 60fps when three enemies are thrown into the air?

 

[Opiate]

I'm going to address the "God of War juggle" example in more detail, because I think it can clearly make my point.

The game mechanic involved in a juggle -- in most action games, again I haven't played GoW specifically -- are timing and coordinated button pressing.

That is, you press A/B/B/C/D/A/B at specific times. In this case, the mechanics are: you have to press the buttons in the correct order, and you have to press them at the correct time.

That's it! That's the entire process, and all the rules which govern a juggle. It is entirely possibel to reproduce this with a simple interface that simply says "A!" then "B!" then "B!" at the correct times. Simon, a simple children's game, can accomplish this (yes, there are versions which measure time as well as order).

http://www.freegames.ws/games/kidsgames/simon/simon.htm

I would guess that most posters here prefer God of War to Simon, but that's because they like the fact that in God of War, there is a visual representation of someone being disemboweled if you succesfully accomplish the goal, while in Simon Says, you get flashing lights (that is, if you "beat" Simon by following the pattern for a long enough time, all the lights will flash and you get a loud beep to declare your victory). If you happen to prefer God of War "juggles" to Simon Says, that is fine, but please understand that they are very similar from a game mechanic perspective. The difference is the visual and audio input one recieves.

 

[Eteric Rice]

I think we got to the point where we stopped doing a whole lot of new things in games after the PSX era. After that it seems to be refinement of what was popular.

There have been a few exceptions, of course.

I think Opiate's point is that gameplay can usually be replicated on nearly anything. The method and effectiveness of their solutions may vary, but at very least the gameplay can be replicated fairly accurately.

Experience is kind of vague. Some people play for gameplay, some people play for graphics, sound, and gameplay. It's really up to the person. Personally, graphics don't bother me to much as long as the style is good. The only issue I have with the Wii's graphics, for instance, is the jaggies. If they could do away with those, but keep the same textures, etc, I wouldn't really care.

 

[Y2Kev]

How could Red Faction Guerrilla be done on an NES? Or a PS1? Or even a PS2? I think the game is fugly, but it's clearly using processing power for something other than graphics.

 

[Opiate]

Ignoring the fact that the visual feedback to the player is completely different and will, by attaching a rhythm to things, make the juggle easier, what if the hardware is too weak to update the sprites and counters at 60fps when three enemies are thrown into the air?

To the contrary, I would expect my system to be much more capable. If there was simply a number on the sprite of the enemy (e.g. "4!" "3!" "2!") one could time juggles much more precisely than one could by simply eyeballing it, as we do now.

You don't need to throw them in to the air, that's what I'm saying. All "throw them in the air" does is create a visual queue that says, "this guy is ready to be juggled." This could be accomplished in innumerable different ways.

Edit: By the way, thank you Tain for correcting my terminology earlier. You are indeed correct that "Gameplay" is distinct from "Game mechanics."

 

[yankee666]

As a graphics whore I must say that improvements in graphics do affect my enjoyment of the game.

I was pissed to find out that the PSP go did not offer a graphics jump over the PSP-3000 like the DSi over the DS.

Wut??

 

[Opiate]

How could Red Faction Guerrilla be done on an NES? Or a PS1? Or even a PS2?

I'll one up you: I can imagine this game as a text based adventure. In fact, I've played very similar games: games which describe the surrounding environment in great detail. You can interract with virtually every single piece of the world around you.

Most of these games aren't as simple as "Destroy it!" but theoretically, they could be. In reality, these games typically have much more complex interactions. Which is to say, they're profoundly more complex than Red Faction: Guerrilla. You have two things you can do in Red Faction: 1) Leave something alone or 2) Blow it up with a gun.

 

[Eteric Rice]

Wut??

The DSi has like 4 times the RAM and twice the processing power of the DS Lite and DS I think.

Thats probably what he's talking about.

 

[Y2Kev]

I'll one up you: I can imagine this game as a text based adventure. In fact, I've played very similar games: games which describe the surrounding environment in great detail. You can interract with virtually every single piece of the world around you.

Most of these games aren't as simple as "Destroy it!" but theoretically, they could be. In reality, these games typically have much more complex interactions. Which is to say, they're profoundly more complex than Red Faction: Guerrilla. You have two things you can do in Red Faction: 1) Leave something alone or 2) Blow it up with a gun.

I don't know if you've played Red Faction Guerrilla, but you've lost the essence of what makes the game special. Text cannot adequately capture the interactions that take place in this game. Moreover, provided it were possible to pick between an extremely large number of real objects bound by architectural design laws to specifically target them using text, I'd argue you've constructed something completely different from Red Faction Guerrilla.

There is no way you can construct the core gameplay of that game using text. I would insist on this.

You have two things you can do in Red Faction: 1) Leave something alone or 2) Blow it up with a gun.

Well, not really. But, again, supposing this were true, you have hundreds of thousands of individual objects to which these rules apply. Additionally, text is not going to capture how each object affects other objects. It simply cannot. The math that would need to be represented through text would be impossible to interpret by any end user.

You're simplifying the game entirely too much.

 

[Kintaro]

I think Opiate's point is that gameplay can usually be replicated on nearly anything. The method and effectiveness of their solutions may vary, but at very least the gameplay can be replicated fairly accurately.

I think the point, which he is missing is that while you can simply damn near anything to replicate it a game, it wouldn't be that game anymore. More importantly, would you want to play it? If we did, we would be.

That's why the market has continued to move. If there was no demand to move, it would not have moved. However, there was a demand to create these different, more interactive ways of doing things and it can spin off and carried on. By both the gamers and the people who actually make these things. The technology allowed these things to occur and thus, played a big role in the gameplay of these games over the years.

Also, some of the examples are just silly. Rock that text based Street Fighter!

 

[yankee666]

The DSi has like 4 times the RAM and twice the processing power of the DS Lite and DS I think.

Thats probably what he's talking about.

Yeah i know that, that doesnt mean is gonna be some "graphics jump" in the games. we still have to wait to see what the Dsi is cappable of in terms of graphic if there is any difference over the DS

 

[Opiate]

Y2Kev, this is the part where I freely admit to not playing the game, so going in to greater depth isn't something I feel comfortable with.

 

[Y2Kev]

My cat has six hands!

 

[Y2Kev]

I should comment that I largely agree with your point. Developers don't use technology in ways that affect gameplay generally. But it certainly does happen.

I don't really think Valkyria Chronicles is one of those games, but, again, as you said before, experience is subjective and everyone is going to value an experience differently.

 

[Opiate]

I think the point, which he is missing is that while you can simply damn near anything to replicate it a game, it wouldn't be that game anymore. More importantly, would you want to play it? If we did, we would be.

We do play it. Chess is a very simple game that can be recreated on the Atari 2600 (or lower. It's just an example). I can garauntee that more people will play Chess today than will play CoD4.

That's why the market has continued to move. If there was no demand to move, it would not have moved.

Two responses to this. First, it would continue to move if some people cared. That is, if 50% of the people thought like me, and 50% of the people thought like you, the market woudl continue to move because doing so doesn't hurt me (I can still play chess) while it continues to service you. Second, and more importantly, you can indeed have a market move against consumer wishes. There's no perfect example of this in practice, but I think Blu Ray is a recent example I've seen of most people not caring, but the companies involved pushing it hard regardless because their profit margins on DVDs had gotten to thin. Windows OS is another example: most people are still fine with XP. In fact, it is fairly common for Tech companies to keep pushing new iterations of their technology on us because they need to maintain profit margins, and not because there is real, legitimate demand for a new product.

Back to that first example of a 50/50 preference split, I think the margins are significantly less favorable for me (that is, people with my preferences are a signiificantly more distinct minority), but this isn't relevant to my essential point. My point was, going all the way back to the beginning of this discussion: "Some people don't care about graphics and technical horsepower." If you will freely admit that some people do not -- as you seem to be implying here -- then that's the only point I wanted to make. In turn, I freely admit that some people do care about technical horsepower, and that's fine too.

 

[Opiate]

Kev, I edited the above post. I decided I don't know enough about Red Faction to comment. Sorry about that.

 

[Y2Kev]

Kev, I edited the above post. I decided I don't know enough about Red Faction to comment. Sorry about that.

Oh, I see. Yeah, I don't even particularly like the game...I guess I'm just more impressed by the technology. I find "groundbreaking" (it's sort of punny with this game, but it's in quotes because it probably isn't really groundbreaking and I am not ignorant to this) games often are this way...somewhere in between tech demos and good games.

 

[Toy Soldier]

Some info on Pokemon Mystery Dungeons for WiiWare.
http://wii.ign.com/articles/100/1003797p1.html

Seems the game will feature an online mode, new 3D graphics, unique abilities (like being able to stack your Pokemon for ultra attacks) and downloadable missions.

Fucking rad. I've been hoping they'd go with a 3D console release of PMD for a while. As Hero of Legend already said, I REALLY wanted a proper disc release fleshed out with a better engine, but hey - it's better than nothing.

I wish this would have been pushed immediately instead of Sky.

 

[dumbass_]

 

[blu]

let me hop in, as somebody who, like Opiate, judges games on more than surface value.

indeed game mechanics is one thing, presentation - another. both do not exist unrelated, though - every particular game mechanics sets certain minimal requirements to its presentation side, and every presentation form sets certain limits to the mechanics side. for instance, you want a 3d battlefield with all the mechanics implications - you need some for of presentation for that. conversely, those beautiful sceneries just costed you 100 NPC units you could've otherwise had in the game, affecting your play style, etc.

when somebody, though, makes a statement 'this game should be on this powerhouse, or otherwise the game would totally suck', they rarely know how exactly that would turn out to be. particularly when speaking of sequels, it's much more a matter of 'i liked the first part well enough that i want more of the same', in which case a migration to a less powerful platform is viewed as a jeopardy to aspects they liked in the first game. objectively, though, in terms of critical reception, very few people, even among the game's devteam can foresee how a sequel platform would turn out to be on a less powerful; it may turn out castrated, or it may just as well turn out to be a better game.

 

[Tain]

To the contrary, I would expect my system to be much more capable. If there was simply a number on the sprite of the enemy (e.g. "4!" "3!" "2!") one could time juggles much more precisely than one could by simply eyeballing it, as we do now.

You don't need to throw them in to the air, that's what I'm saying. All "throw them in the air" does is create a visual queue that says, "this guy is ready to be juggled." This could be accomplished in innumerable different ways.

A game's code is the game's rules. What a machine executes, calculates, and decides. All aesthetic decisions are (at the very least) subtle mechanical ones, simply by nature of a game requiring a human being to play it. By saying that your juggle method is "more precise" (easier), you are showing clear as day that the game will cause a different reaction in the player.

Even if you define "gameplay" as nothing but what the player inputs (which you are doing), calculations go into what the game demands the player presses. You can't calculate the physics of a car hitting a garbage can which then clips someone and causes them to stagger backwards off of a ledge. You can try to 100% accurately break this scenario down into a logic demo, but at some point, you're going to have to change collision geometry or timing, and you'll be left with a fundamental mechanical change that will ask for different input by having the player deal with an enemy positioned in a different location.

You can adapt, and you can vaguely recreate, even if you can't truly do the same thing without running the native code at the same speed. But why even bother making that point? You can often take a one-off sentence describing a situation in a modern game and break it down into simple logic demos that ask the same button presses and timing of the player, but if that's your point, why bother arguing it? There isn't a single person that would disagree, assuming they know what you're saying.

Again, all aesthetic decisions are (at the very least) subtle mechanical ones, simply by nature of a game requiring a human being to play it. If you ignore the fact that humans have to react to what is shown on the screen, or if you simplify the reality by pretending people recognize and process a rhythmic counter the same way they would react to something fluidly flying through the air, then there's really nothing worth claiming at all.

TLDR version:

I think the point, which he is missing is that while you can simply [do] damn near anything to replicate it a game, it wouldn't be that game anymore. More importantly, would you want to play it? If we did, we would be.

Yeah. On weaker hardware, you can approximate, but the fact that a game needs humans reacting to it is what makes the "aesthetic" decisions matter so much.

We do play it. Chess is a very simple game that can be recreated on the Atari 2600 (or lower. It's just an example). I can garauntee that more people will play Chess today than will play CoD4.

I don't even know what this has to do with anything.

 

[Hobbun]

And that is completely fine. You're welcome to your preferences. Please let others enjoy theirs.

And I never said you couldn't, I only said the standards have been set with the first VC. If you read any of the reviews or talk to others about the game, those are many of the reasons they have stated they like it.

If you prefer very basic graphics with little sound, you are certainly entitlted to your preference. But please be aware that you are definitely in the minority.

How does that define the entire "experience?" Again, what if part of the "experience," to me, is playing it while on the subway? What if voice acting is completely irrelevant to me, and thus is not part of the "experience?" Are these people wrong? No. They just have different priorities and, consequently, "experience" the game differently.

This gets to the root of the entire discussion. Look at how you've defined "experience." The idea of what it is to "experience" a video game to you is so deeply ingrained that you cannot imagine others valuing different things. What if I valued the control mechanism the game used? That's part of the experience for me. You didn't even consider this, however, because you apparently don't care very much about it.

There is no correct, be-all-end-all definition of "Experience." You listed what makes the "experience" for you, but that is not necessarily what makes the experience for other people.

As I said above, what I listed in what made the game enjoyable for me, is what has been listed in reviews and impressions I have read from others. It's not just the gameplay, but all of those aspects that are included during reviews.

But I am talking about what is in the game in what makes it an enjoyable experience. You make reference to real life experiences. Ok, fine then. Well, when I play my handheld games, I like to have a cup of juice and sometimes have the tv on the background. It makes the game a more enjoyable 'experience' for me. But is that something the developer can even fathom to have any control over? Same idea on that you enjoy the portability of it. And that has more to do with the actual handheld system than specifically the game itself.

It is great you enjoy playing your games on the go, but don't confuse that with enjoyable experiences designed into the game compared to enjoyable 'experiences' you like to do in real life.

In your opinion. Which you are welcome to. Can I have my opinion, too, please? Without being called a moron or a troll?

You are welcome to your opinion. But really, it's just ludicrous the argument you are trying to make in saying that Valkyria Chronicles would be the same game if you took a lot of those things you proposed out or changed the game that drastically. To just about everyone (except maybe yourself) it would no longer be Valkyria Chronicles.

And as for calling you a moron or troll, I had never said that in my post.

 

[Deku]

I'm pretty sure the gaggle of SRPG gamers here would find your loose characterization of the non PS3 SRPGs 'very basic' graphically to be an insult.

I've played VC, I liked VC, but the graphics argument is really just about what is possible on the PS3 and may be possible on the PSP and less to do with the game itself.

VC would be just as neat as a hex based, isometric game. And those games are anything but basic in the AV department. People who prefer that are probably in the majority in this case.

 

[Y2Kev]

VC would be just as neat as a hex based, isometric game..

How can you say that? I don't agree.

 

[Hobbun]

I'm pretty sure the gaggle of SRPG gamers here would find your loose characterization of the non PS3 SRPGs 'very basic' graphically to be an insult.

I've played VC, I liked VC, but the graphics argument is really just about what is possible on the PS3 and may be possible on the PSP and less to do with the game itself.

VC would be just as neat as a hex based, isometric game. And those games are anything but basic in the AV department. People who prefer that are probably in the majority in this case.

I have played the older SRPGs as well and still enjoy them. FFTs is probably still my number 1 favorite SRPG.

But I would say VC's gameplay, along with it's storybook format is what truly makes it unique. And in the process of that storybook format was using the colorful graphics and well done sound (including music). And I don't say that just for me, but for most who enjoyed the game from what I have read and heard.

So I would have to strongly disagree with you if you turned VC into FFT, or Disgaea, would be just as well liked. You'd probably have a lot of pissed off people, actually. And the game would definitely no longer be Valkyria Chronicles.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

I am glad about the platform change for many reasons. My main reason is the fact that I do not have time for console gaming anymore and handheld gaming has been my only time. I think most gamers the passed ten years have been diluted on the fact of HD audio, graphics, etc that they simply forget the soul of a video game and the enjoyment. Seriously its sad imo.

Yeah, I'm not against better graphics, but I don't want other things to suffer just to have prettier graphics. I say only graphics because sound peaked a while back and can't be made much better. If many games did not get worse as the graphics got better, you wouldn't find as many people saying graphics aren't that important. Now we have games that are getting better visually but failing in other areas, and then combine that with the fanboys who act like that's great, is it any wonder why some people are fine with VC going to PSP?

 

[Deku]

I have played the older SRPGs as well and still enjoy them. FFTs is probably still my number 1 favorite SRPG.

But I would say VC's gameplay, along with it's storybook format is what truly makes it unique. And in the process of that storybook format was using the colorful graphics and well done sound (including music). And I don't say that just for me, but for most who enjoyed the game from what I have read and heard.

So I would have to strongly disagree with you if you turned VC into FFT, or Disgaea, would be just as well liked. You'd probably have a lot of pissed off people, actually. And the game would definitely no longer be Valkyria Chronicles.

I don't disagree there will be a lot of pissed off people. But it won't be because a FFT type VC will play any worse. It's as you say, the PS3 setting a certain standard [for the fans] but it's by no means a new breakthrough only possible on certain hardware.

And I have no problem with that. But your reference to 'very basic' graphics doesn't make sense to me. And it's not as if the current dominant style of SPRGs are somehow limited visually, stylistically or even technically from presenting an SRPG in a novel, interesting way with 'colorful' graphics.

 

[rollingstart]

I'm pretty sure the gaggle of SRPG gamers here would find your loose characterization of the non PS3 SRPGs 'very basic' graphically to be an insult.

I've played VC, I liked VC, but the graphics argument is really just about what is possible on the PS3 and may be possible on the PSP and less to do with the game itself.

VC would be just as neat as a hex based, isometric game. And those games are anything but basic in the AV department. People who prefer that are probably in the majority in this case.

Forgive me if I'm not caught up on the luddite vs progressive thinker debate on this thread. So, I'm not entirely sure what is being argued and I'm only talking about the last bit there about Valkria.

The entire charm of Valkyria is that it isn't a hex based game. The official thread title for the game says something ridiculous like "revolutionary gameplay" or something, I don't remember, but it is kinda true. Valkyria takes third person shooter controls, breaks it down and adapts it to a turn based strategy game. The charm is providing the thrills of turn based strategy game without any of the over intrusive statistics and grid movement. If you want to break it all down and think about when this style of gameplay could have been possible, then I'd say anytime 3D graphics became good enough to handle it. Probably late 90s PC, possibly PS1 or N64 hardware.

 

[Shadow780]

Damn that's a massive rack...

you have no idea

 

[Hobbun]

I don't disagree there will be a lot of pissed off people. But it won't be because a FFT type VC will play any worse. It's as you say, the PS3 setting a certain standard [for the fans] but it's by no means a new breakthrough only possible on certain hardware.

And I have no problem with that. But your reference to 'very basic' graphics doesn't make sense to me. And it's not as if the current dominant style of SPRGs are somehow limited visually, stylistically or even technically from presenting an SRPG in a novel, interesting way with 'colorful' graphics.

Well, you were the one who made the assumption of my wording of 'very basic graphics' was associated with the SRPG grid formats already designed.

What I was referring to was what the prior poster was talking about with how VC could be done with blocky (8-bit) graphics and a text based game. Sure, it could maybe be done mechanically, but to the same enjoyment factor? No. Well, at least most would not think so.

And as for the grid based SRPGs also being able to tell a story, most certainly. They can do good cutscenes as well and I still feel FFT tells the best story of them all.

However, I feel the unique format of the actual book is part of what makes VC what unique. And I don't know of another SRPG that has as many story sequences (cutscenes) as VC. All of that helps make the game what it is and why a lot of people have liked it.

 

[charlequin]

Yeah, I'm not against better graphics, but I don't want other things to suffer just to have prettier graphics. I say only graphics because sound peaked a while back and can't be made much better. If many games did not get worse as the graphics got better, you wouldn't find as many people saying graphics aren't that important. Now we have games that are getting better visually but failing in other areas, and then combine that with the fanboys who act like that's great, is it any wonder why some people are fine with VC going to PSP?

Amazingly, I completely agree with you. :lol

More powerful graphical hardware has always driven a development trend in games towards higher budgets, more of the total percentage of the budget spent on visual effects, and longer dev cycles. At first, all this process meant was that ludicrously profitable games coded by a single engineer transformed into reasonably profitable games coded by a team -- but as time has gone on, the cost of producing games has continued to rise. One of the biggest results has been the slow squeezing out of "niche" titles (like, yes, Valkyria Chronicles) -- games with appeal only to a limited audience -- because where once such titles could sell 150k and make a huge profit, today such sales might represent a massive loss of money for the publisher.

Handheld platforms are not only far superior for users' needs in Japan (and, I would argue, for most titles even in the US); their lower technical specs allow companies to develop towards a less expensive benchmark and thereby keep such titles profitable at the sales levels they can actually achieve.

I don't disagree that technology enables more gameplay possibilities -- witness the rise of new genres like FPSes, 3D platformers, and sandbox games that were not possible or fully workable on earlier hardware -- but I'm not the only person who's noticed the fact that unlike previous generations, there's very little in the way of new gameplay that's actually been enabled this time around.

 

[rollingstart]

ok, reading a bit more, it seems like people saying technology doesn't impact gameplay are really ignoring the benefits of having strong visuals in games. The stance some people seem to be taking is breaking down a game to the bare essentials and acting like that is what matters most, saying "gameplay" matters most, as if the time spent playing the game is just the mechanics. I'd imagine this is a problem native to Video Games because for a good long time, games were just that. If you told someone that a movie would be just as good if you removed directing, acting and just had the text of the script, that wouldn't fly. It also seems like people think that it's one or the other; strong visuals or mechanic importance. I can't relate to the luddite beliefs in this thread since I try and think about how to keep making games better while still enjoying what I currently have. Solid mechanics are imporatant to me, but so is the game having a rich atmosphere.

But importance on visuals sacrificing fluid controls is lame. I wouldn't mind it if more games sacrifice the picture to be solid 30 or 60 fps.

 

[Opiate]

And I never said you couldn't, I only said the standards have been set with the first VC. If you read any of the reviews or talk to others about the game, those are many of the reasons they have stated they like it.

And again, they're welcome to that opinion.

If you prefer very basic graphics with little sound, you are certainly entitlted to your preference. But please be aware that you are definitely in the minority.

I'm definitely aware. And even more importantly, this game is on the PS3, a platform which has gone out of its way to attract graphics whores (the advertisements for the first year or two emphasized the system's computational power).

As I said above, what I listed in what made the game enjoyable for me, is what has been listed in reviews and impressions I have read from others. It's not just the gameplay, but all of those aspects that are included during reviews.

But I am talking about what is in the game in what makes it an enjoyable experience. You make reference to real life experiences. Ok, fine then. Well, when I play my handheld games, I like to have a cup of juice and sometimes have the tv on the background. It makes the game a more enjoyable 'experience' for me. But is that something the developer can even fathom to have any control over? Same idea on that you enjoy the portability of it. And that has more to do with the actual handheld system than specifically the game itself.

Sure he can. The developer can have control over it by putting it on a portable system. This greatly increases the chances of the game being played in this fashion. In fact, this is literally impossible to do on a console, as it requires your TV's screen space.

It is great you enjoy playing your games on the go,

I don't. I'm not a handheld gamer.

but don't confuse that with enjoyable experiences designed into the game compared to enjoyable 'experiences' you like to do in real life.

I can't tell what you're suggesting. Are you suggesting the portability of a game isn't part of the experience that developers have control over? They clearly do: they can put it on a handheld, or they cannot. This decision affects the quality of the experience of many players.

You are welcome to your opinion. But really, it's just ludicrous the argument you are trying to make in saying that Valkyria Chronicles would be the same game if you took a lot of those things you proposed out or changed the game that drastically.

Let me summarize this part of your post: "You are welcome to your opinion... but you're fucking crazy."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You do not seem to be able to accept that, for me, the quality of the game would not be changed if the PS3 had been made for the PS1. I honestly, genuinely, really mean it. I'm not crazy, or stupid or "ludicrous." It's not true for you, apparently, but it is true for me.

To just about everyone (except maybe yourself) it would no longer be Valkyria Chronicles.

Look at how many people prefer the game on the PSP in this thread: it isn't the majority, but it's enough to show that this isn't some crazy left-field position.

I'm not sure when people who care passionately about visuals came to such prominence. There was a time when people of your ilk were (unjustly) ridiculed: that's where the term "graphics whore" came from. It is a term intended to belittle those who care a great deal about superficial concerns like graphics or sound, and aren't 100% concerned with gameplay as "true" gamers are. Again, that was unfair, as everyone should be allowed to enjoy games their own way. But now it's done a complete 180: not only is it acceptable to care about graphics, but it's correct to care about them. People who don't care about them are obviously just DS owners, or they're morons or trolls, or their opinions are ludicrous.

And as for calling you a moron or troll, I had never said that in my post.

I didn't mean to suggest you did. Several others have, that was my point.

 

[Opiate]

ok, reading a bit more, it seems like people saying technology doesn't impact gameplay are really ignoring the benefits of having strong visuals in games. The stance some people seem to be taking is breaking down a game to the bare essentials and acting like that is what matters most, saying "gameplay" matters most, as if the time spent playing the game is just the mechanics.

I'm saying this is true for me. Because it is true for me. Everyone cares about different things in different amounts. You apparently care about gameplay and graphics: perhaps you care equally about both, 50/50. I, however, care 100% about gameplay and 0% about grahpics -- or near enough that I can't tell the difference. I don't mind if I'm playing new games, 10 year old games, or 10000 year old games. It is irrelevant to me.

I'd imagine this is a problem native to Video Games because for a good long time, games were just that. If you told someone that a movie would be just as good if you removed directing, acting and just had the text of the script, that wouldn't fly.

You mean a book? Yes it would.

It also seems like people think that it's one or the other; strong visuals or mechanic importance.

I'm not suggesting that is the case.

can't relate to the luddite beliefs in this thread since I try and think about how to keep making games better while still enjoying what I currently have. Solid mechanics are imporatant to me, but so is the game having a rich atmosphere

And that's fine. I don't agree. Solid mechanics are what I care about almost exclusively: I also care about intellectual stimulation. So, for example, I strongly prefer Go and Chess because they engage my intellect far more than most games. As far as I know, after some serious consideration, those are (almost) entirely all of my concerns when considering a game.

 

[Deku]

I don't think separating people into graphics whores and whatever you want to call the rest (purists?) is productive.

We all want the AV experience to improve and I am certain that eventually there will be more and more SRPGs done in the style of VC.

But the shitting on 2D and dominant SRPG formats as something to be tolerated is what I cannot agree with. Ideally the TBS/SRPG/Strategy genre needs to be left alone and developers be left open to explore games using 3-D and 2-D.

Back on topic. When a certian game like VC is done on a very capable machine like the PS3, it creates certain expectations and justifications for its existance. The expectations is somewhat understandable, the justifications are pretty much what you'd expect. X is on Y console because it can't be done elsewhere and thus X is special.

You've seen this said of DS games that then subsequently gets ported elsewhere or is up-franchised into the Wii catalog without the benefit of a touch screen.

 

[Y2Kev]

I don't mind if I'm playing new games, 10 year old games, or 10000 year old games. It is irrelevant to me.

Oh cmmon. I love old games and play them all the time, but I still "care" about graphics! You just have to be able to appreciate games for what they were.

I know personally I like seeing better graphics because I like seeing better graphics. I think it's important to be honest about this.

 

[Opiate]

A game's code is the game's rules. What a machine executes, calculates, and decides. All aesthetic decisions are (at the very least) subtle mechanical ones, simply by nature of a game requiring a human being to play it. By saying that your juggle method is "more precise" (easier), you are showing clear as day that the game will cause a different reaction in the player.

This is a much better argument than others proposed. I see your position, and I'll have to think on it.

Even if you define "gameplay" as nothing but what the player inputs (which you are doing),

No, I'm defining it as the rules and limitations which govern play.

calculations go into what the game demands the player presses. You can't calculate the physics of a car hitting a garbage can which then clips someone and causes them to stagger backwards off of a ledge. You can try to 100% accurately break this scenario down into a logic demo, but at some point, you're going to have to change collision geometry or timing, and you'll be left with a fundamental mechanical change that will ask for different input by having the player deal with an enemy positioned in a different location.

I don't think I'd consider "an enemy positioned in a different location" to be an example of game mechanics, but again, I'd have to think on it. This is a much more robust argument than those offered previously.

 

[Opiate]

Oh cmmon. I love old games and play them all the time, but I still "care" about graphics! You just have to be able to appreciate games for what they were.

I know personally I like seeing better graphics because I like seeing better graphics. I think it's important to be honest about this.

You're doing this on purpose, right? This is tongue and cheek to get me going? This thread has been a little rough on me Kev, I'm doing my best to maintain a reasonable demeanor despite the slings and arrows.

I don't think separating people into graphics whores and whatever you want to call the rest (purists?) is productive.

You're right. Edited.

 

[Y2Kev]

You're doing this on purpose, right? This is tongue and cheek to get me going? This thread has been a little rough on me Kev, I'm doing my best to maintain a reasonable demeanor despite the slings and arrows.

okay, you got me

i don't even really know what's being argued. i'm gonna go stare at my lava lamp

 

[Opiate]

okay, you got me

i don't even really know what's being argued. i'm gonna go stare at my lava lamp

Just in case, I'll state it again: I honestly, genuinely, really do not care about graphics. I mean it. I'm being serious. I'm not saying this because I'm a DS owner (I am not a DS only owner) or because I have some crazy bias. I really, really don't care. It's completely fine if you do care, but I don't.

This kind of reminds me of high school, when everybody said that a girl's looks don't matter, its the inside that counts. Well, I meant it, and I'm still dating a girl that most people don't find very pretty (but who has now finished Harvard Law). I really, honestly, genuinely meant it, and it pissed me off to no end to discover that most people were just saying it because they're supposed to or something. And now people don't believe me when I say it. Everybody else was lying, and just saying it to sound noble: obviously, I must be lying to. You can say it, but deep down you really care, don't you Opiate?

ALSKDHALASDGQWEASXDHA:LSKHDL:k. No. Stop!

 

[SaitoH]

@Opiate - The two things I think that benefit greatly from increased processing power are AI and physics.

Consider a game completely built around physics like Littlebigplanet, or the sophisticated handling model for the cars of Forza 2, the glancing blows in Fight Night round 4 etc.

You can simplify and approximate systems like these, but that does effect gameplay.

 

[Opiate]

@Opiate - The two things I think that benefit greatly from increased processing power are AI and physics.

Consider a game completely built around physics like Littlebigplanet, or the sophisticated handling model for the cars of Forza 2, the glancing blows in Fight Night round 4 etc.

You can simplify and approximate systems like these, but that does effect gameplay.

Yes, I think you and Tain are correct. There are cases where processing power does affect gameplay. I'm convinced.

 

[Hcoregamer00]

Back on topic. When a certian game like VC is done on a very capable machine like the PS3, it creates certain expectations and justifications for its existance. The expectations is somewhat understandable, the justifications are pretty much what you'd expect. X is on Y console because it can't be done elsewhere and thus X is special.

I think this is the disconnect that I have with many people who are complaining about VC on the PSP.

I may be a graphics whore, but I know that the PSP is perfectly capable of providing a perfect Valkyria Chronicles experience, assuming that the PSP sequel is given an appropriate budget to do so. The VC experience, from the cutscenes to the gameplay can be replicated on the PSP with no problems. Sure it will be a downgrade, but you can still experience Valkyria Chronicles on the PSP.

 

[Hobbun]

I'm definitely aware. And even more importantly, this game is on the PS3, a platform which has gone out of its way to attract graphics whores (the advertisements for the first year or two emphasized the system's computational power).

First and foremost, I am not a 'graphics whore'. I started playing video games back on the 2600 and I appreciate the games for what they are, for their time. However, it doesn't mean that I can't enjoy a game when a developer puts higher production value into the game, either. And yes, I do feel it enhances the game. But, I still can enjoy lower production games, as well. But when a game sets a standard as VC already has, it doesn't make a lot of sense to take a 'step back', persay.

Let me summarize this part of your post: "You are welcome to your opinion... but you're fucking crazy."

This is exactly what I'm talking about. You do not seem to be able to accept that, for me, the quality of the game would not be changed if the PS3 had been made for the PS1. I honestly, genuinely, really mean it. I'm not crazy, or stupid or "ludicrous." It's not true for you, apparently, but it is true for me.

Thank you for putting words into my mouth that I never said. I never called you a 'moron', I never called you 'fucking crazy', I never called you 'stupid'. I am sorry others have insulted you, but that has not been my intent. Ok, maybe I should not have used ludicrous, but really, think about it for a minute. Eariler on you were making an argument to have VC run on an 8-bit system or to make it a text-based game and on top of that, it would be the same game. I mean do you think playing Baseball from the NES is the same or even similar as MLB: The Show? And I am not saying this in an insulting or sarcastic way, I am truly asking you. You have to notice the difference between the two.

I'm not sure when people who care passionately about visuals came to such prominence. There was a time when people of your ilk were (unjustly) ridiculed: that's where the term "graphics whore" came from. It is a term intended to belittle those who care a great deal about superficial concerns like graphics or sound, and aren't 100% concerned with gameplay as "true" gamers are. Again, that was unfair, as everyone should be allowed to enjoy games their own way. But now it's done a complete 180: not only is it acceptable to care about graphics, but it's correct to care about them. People who don't care about them are obviously just DS owners, or they're morons or trolls, or their opinions are ludicrous.

Once again, I am not a graphics whore, however my argument to you has maybe sounded that way. I enjoy playing games with lesser graphics, but when a game sets a standard and does well with it, I don't see a reason to downgrade it, unless it is a spin-off.

My argument has never been that graphics and sound are my number one priorities, but as VC is an RPG, they definitely enhance in telling the story. If it doesn't achieve that for you, then it doesn't do so.

I didn't mean to suggest you did. Several others have, that was my point.

By you quoting my post in mentioning you are being called a moron and a troll, you suggested that I did. If you wish to make that point to not be called that, please quote their posts instead.

 

[Kintaro]

I think this is the disconnect that I have with many people who are complaining about VC on the PSP.

I may be a graphics whore, but I know that the PSP is perfectly capable of providing a perfect Valkyria Chronicles experience, assuming that the PSP sequel is given an appropriate budget to do so. The VC experience, from the cutscenes to the gameplay can be replicated on the PSP with no problems. Sure it will be a downgrade, but you can still experience Valkyria Chronicles on the PSP.

Then it won't be the Valkyria Chronicles I experienced. That's all there is to it.

 

[ethelred]

It's kinda awkward that all of sudden people wants the game on PSP/WII or even the freaking DS when nobody gave a fuck about valkyria chronicles on the ps3 and many of these people didnt even play valkyria chronicles yet

These people do not care about the game itself they care about the platform and call us close minded for only wanting the game on PS3 when people who actually cares about the game bought a PS3 for it and now they are asking them to buy PSP too

Well, I bought Valkyrie of the Battlefield. And I'm a huge fan of the original game -- I loved it. I don't think it's the best SRPG ever or anything like that, as some are inclined to claim, but it was extremely well made and sort of helps serve as a keystone of the mini-renaissance that's been taking place within the SRPG genre this gen (last gen was so utterly barren; it was basically Fire Emblem and a bunch of Nippon Ichi shovelware).

So, loved the original game on the PS3. But I'm not at all bothered by the sequel being on the PSP. So there you have it.

... "revolutionary gameplay" or something, I don't remember, but it is kinda true. Valkyria takes third person shooter controls, breaks it down and adapts it to a turn based strategy game.

It actually isn't revolutionary, though! It's not hugely different from Future Tactics (a PS2/GCN/Xbox multiplat western-made SRPG) mechanically. The main difference is that it's actually, well, good.

 

[Eteric Rice]

@Opiate - The two things I think that benefit greatly from increased processing power are AI and physics.

Consider a game completely built around physics like Littlebigplanet, or the sophisticated handling model for the cars of Forza 2, the glancing blows in Fight Night round 4 etc.

You can simplify and approximate systems like these, but that does effect gameplay.

Wait, isn't Little Big Planet being done on the PSP?

Anyway, from what I understand, AI doesn't change much. What does change is how much AI can be processed at once. This is my understanding, I could be wrong.

There are instances where greater power can enable developers to do things. For instance, Dead Rising. I think what Opiate is saying is that someone creative enough can probably replicate the gameplay and effect of the original, etc, on weaker systems.

For instance, a PSP Dead Rising could take place in a building with lots of hallways. It would give the illusion that there are tons of zombies, but in reality it won't be as much as the normal DR.

 

[dumbass_]

Wait, isn't Little Big Planet being done on the PSP?

I'm pretty sure there is different between psp and 8 bit systems power though