Support NeoGAF

[Hcoregamer00]

Really? On the SNES? The successor to the NES with advanced graphics and sound over the system before it? You saying those improvements didn't factor into your enjoyment of those games you believe are better than most games today?

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.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

It's been proven repeatedly, I believe, that this isn't the case. Technical power does not affect gameplay. I can't think of a single genre for which this is true.

.

Dead Rising on Wii pales in comparison to the 360 version due to the former's inability to display more than a couple dozen enemies on screen at once.

 

[Quixzlizx]

It's been proven repeatedly, I believe, that this isn't the case. Technical power does not affect gameplay. I can't think of a single genre for which this is true.



What a clouded and vague statement. Part of the "experience?" Why isn't walking around while playing part of the "experience?" This is meaningless. I do not agree. Graphics and sound are not part of the "experience" for me. Am I wrong? Do I not count somehow?



This problem is solved very simply: lower the technical requirements of the game. Make it text based, if necessary. It is always possible to include more if you simply lower the technical requirements.

Processing power doesn't affect gameplay, yet solving storage problems involves lowering the technical requirements of the game, making it "text-based, if necessary?" Making VC a text-based game wouldn't affect the gameplay? Are you a troll, or a moron?

I don't even know how to respond to your second point, so I'll just ask that troll or moron question again.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

I hope that more developers will consider bringing their mainline titles to the PSP. Namco Bandai, learn from Sega's example! Make a Tales mainline game on the PSP!

Sure. Why not?

Oh they will. If it gives them a way to avoid putting it on the Wii, then yes.

I agree with you in the respect that they seem to be tying the franchise to Sony consoles. After all, having a PS3/X360 simultaneous release would have been better for franchise sales for the original. To go a step further, they could have announced this game simultaneously for the Wii/PS2/PSP, instead they make it PSP-only. Like with the Yakuza franchise, they seem to keep Valkyria exclusive to Sony platforms. Keeping the franchise exclusive is both smart and dumb. It is smart because Sony fans will make the Valkyria franchise their own. It is also dumb because it cuts off lots of potential sales on other platforms.

On the other hand, your PSP post is perfect, I really can't argue against that. Sega is trying to get Valkyria on the PSP in the middle of the console revival, which is the perfect way to get a new market.

So why not put it on the PS2, too? It would still be a PS franchise. They might as well to help keep the series alive.

Dead Rising on Wii pales in comparison to the 360 version due to the former's inability to display more than a couple dozen enemies on screen at once.

The Wii version could display 100 at once.

 

[Kintaro]

If you want I can go back to tetris 0_0

But another way you should look at it is that inferior SNES console compared to the PS3, 360, and Wii why does it have some of the best JRPG's of all time but Ps3's, 360's , or Wii's do not hold a candle to them? You can switch it around all you want there is a point were technical requirements become stale.

Why? Because the Japanese got left behind this generation big time. Actually, console buyers probably left them behind just as much as they left themselves behind. They could not keep up and can not keep up. Plus, Sony dropped the ball. Luckily, the country likes their handhelds and they can churn out the same stuff on the cheap with PS1/SNES graphics. Pretty easy to explain actually.

You'll notice they aren't so quick to embrace the Wii with the JRPGs either. The only JP developer who truly succeeded is Nintendo. They aren't so quick to share the wealth either it seems.

The JP are set in the cheap and easy route and that's all there is to it. I do believe there's a nice bunch of nostalgia in your thoughts as well. The console market is dominated by the West now. Japanese devs got out hustled but they have a way out with their, now, niche stuff. I supposed that's why you have a lot of fans thankfully for handhelds. Otherwise, they would all be fucked.

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.

I'm glad you can say you're a graphics whore. It's the video part of video games. People who deny this are in complete denial. Somehow, I don't think gaming would have grown to what it is today if graphics stuck around looking like Atari for 30 years. >.>

 

[PepsimanVsJoe]

It's been proven repeatedly, I believe, that this isn't the case. Technical power does not affect gameplay. I can't think of a single genre for which this is true.

Technical power has an affect on gameplay though. I'm not sure why people continue to dispute this even though it's been this way for decades.

 

[rosjos44]

Why? Because the Japanese got left behind this generation big time. Actually, console buyers probably left them behind just as much as they left themselves behind. They could not keep up and can not keep up. Plus, Sony dropped the ball. Luckily, the country likes their handhelds and they can churn out the same stuff on the cheap with PS1/SNES graphics. Pretty easy to explain actually.

You'll notice they aren't so quick to embrace the Wii with the JRPGs either. The only JP developer who truly succeeded is Nintendo. They aren't so quick to share the wealth either it seems.

The JP are set in the cheap and easy route and that's all there is to it. I do believe there's a nice bunch of nostalgia in your thoughts as well. The console market is dominated by the West now. Japanese devs got out hustled but they have a way out with their, now, niche stuff. I supposed that's why you have a lot of fans thankfully for handhelds. Otherwise, they would all be fucked.

Nostalgia could have to do with it or I'm trying to look at it from a rational point of view. Just stating that technical requirements have become stale. Gameplay in many genres have not improved drastically since the N64 era.

 

[sonicmj1]

It's been proven repeatedly, I believe, that this isn't the case. Technical power does not affect gameplay. I can't think of a single genre for which this is true.

This problem is solved very simply: lower the technical requirements of the game. Make it text based, if necessary. It is always possible to include more if you simply lower the technical requirements.

I've seen you take this stance before, but I think in this case, you're overreaching.

Someone has already mentioned the example of Dead Rising. Someone could conceivably mention the recent Red Faction: Guerilla, which has huge levels containing buildings that have very detailed destruction routines which require high levels of processing power. Yet simply the number of enemies or objects in an environment could be affected by horsepower (if I remember right, RE4 for PS2 can't have as many enemies onscreen as its Gamecube counterpart, and nobody would argue the Japan phone-only version plays equivalently), or the amount of simultaneous players in an online PC shooter like Battlefield 2. You can tone down the detail as much as you like, but you will run into a theoretical limit where it will be hard to make out vital details in the environment, or the game will be abstracted to an impossible degree, or hardware limitations will prevent decent control.

I mean, if you want an example of a game with an incredibly high level of complexity that chooses to sacrifice graphics as a result, you can look at the freeware, ASCII rendered Dwarf Fortress, which keeps track of a stupid number of variables for each entity in the environment, yet is nearly impossible to parse for newcomers who can't tell what they're looking at when they look at the screen, and can't tell how to control it due to its clumsy interface. At some point, technology will limit what is possible when it comes to playing a game.

That's not to say there aren't merits in portable play. Convenience means an awful lot to people, and if they'd rather play on the go, technical benefits (which I'd agree are generally marginal gains) won't matter all that much to them.

 

[Enron]

It's been proven repeatedly, I believe, that this isn't the case. Technical power does not affect gameplay. I can't think of a single genre for which this is true.



What a nebulous and vague statement. Part of the "experience?" Why isn't walking around while playing part of the "experience?" This is meaningless. I do not agree. Graphics and sound are not part of the "experience" for me. Am I wrong? Do I not count somehow?



This problem is solved very simply: lower the technical requirements of the game. Make it text based, if necessary. It is always possible to include more if you simply lower the technical requirements.

Translation: I only own a Nintendo DS

 

[Opiate]

Processing power doesn't affect gameplay, yet solving storage problems involves lowering the technical requirements of the game, making it "text-based, if necessary?" Making VC a text-based game wouldn't affect the gameplay? Are you a troll, or a moron?

What mechanics of VC could not be accomplished on an 8 bit graphics engine? Honest question. All of the mechanics are completely doable on a Nintendo Entertainment System, I believe.

This is an honest question. Just answer: what mechanic could literally not be achieved on a lower powered system? Just one single mechanic. I can't think of any, so if you'd help me out, I'd appreciate it.

I don't even know how to respond to your second point, so I'll just ask that troll or moron question again.

It's an honest question, so let's just assume I'm a moron. Please answer it.

I don't find graphics to be part of the "experience." I can certainly imagine that some people would feel they are, but I don't. I can also certainly imagine someone feeling that playing the game on a train is part of the "experience," and that they'd enjoy it significantly less if they played it at home alone. I don't feel that way, but I can imagine it.

So here's the question: why is your assessment of what makes up the "experience" correct while other people's evaulation is wrong? Why can't people decide what the "experience" is for themselves?

 

[Opiate]

Translation: I only own a Nintendo DS

I have a PC running on an i7 board with 2x4870s running 2x24'' dual screen monitors with a 50'' plasma TV hooked up to it. That's what I'm typing on right now. I built it myself. I just posted -- literally yesterday -- about how 90% of my gaming is now done on this PC. Go look it up, if you'd like.

I own a 360 and PS3. I just recently bought a DS. There's even a thread here where I asked about it: it's about three months old. Go look it up, if you'd like.

Please don't be so presumptuous in the future. Just because you apparently care about graphics and HD and huge screens does not mean others do.

Let me add this please: there is nothing that bothers me more on GAF than people who are absolutely convinced that they know what is good in gaming, and other people who disagree are clearly biased or stupid. For example, awesome graphics and HD matter! Clearly, anyone who disagrees must be biased, or only own a DS and they just want to defend their purchase.

No. Stop. There are really, honestly, genuinely people who do not care about HD/Graphics. Your personal tastes are not "correct," they are just your personal tastes, and other people aren't crazy for disagreeing with you.

 

[Enron]

So here's the question: why is your assessment of what makes up the "experience" correct while other people's evaulation is wrong? Why can't people decide what the "experience" is for themselves?

You did this same thing yourself. You said "Technical power does not affect gameplay" like it was carved in stone as part of some kind of Nerd Ten Commandments. WHY WONT YOU LET ME DECIDE WHAT MY EXPERIENCE IS

I have a PC running on an i7 board with 2x4870s running 2x24'' dual screen monitors with a 50'' plasma TV hooked up to it. That's what I'm typing on right now. I built it myself. I just posted -- literally yesterday -- about how 90% of my gaming is now done on this PC. Go look it up, if you'd like.

I own a 360 and PS3. I just recently bought a DS. There's even a thread here where I asked about it: it's about three months old. Go look it up, if you'd like.

Please don't be so presumptuous in the future. Just because you apparently care about graphics and HD and huge screens does not mean others do.

Hey dude, can I touch you? I mean, wow!

Let me add this please: there is nothing that bothers me more on GAF than people who are absolutely convinced that they know what is good in gaming

Oh, you mean like yourself?

It's been proven repeatedly, I believe, that this isn't the case. Technical power does not affect gameplay. I can't think of a single genre for which this is true.

Well there you go, GAF. Opiate the All-Knowing has declared it so.

 

[xs_mini_neo]

Nostalgia could have to do with it or I'm trying to look at it from a rational point of view. Just stating that technical requirements have become stale. Gameplay in many genres have not improved drastically since the N64 era.

You are correct. If you've seen the beta RE5 topic here, you'd see that people are saying all the stuff Capcom didn't put in RE5 was due to hardware limitations. Irony is that the stuff could have been put in if they let the graphics take a hit. That is the issue. We get next gen consoles, but the focus would remain on graphics. So we only see small bits of improvement in everything else at a snails pace.

I wonder what graphics whores will do once we hit the limit on graphics... will they explode from the well drying up? We've come dangerously close to real life graphics already.

 

[Opiate]

You did this same thing yourself. You said "Technical power does not affect gameplay" like it was carved in stone as part of some kind of Nerd Ten Commandments. WHY WONT YOU LET ME DECIDE WHAT MY EXPERIENCE IS

Because those are two different things. "Gameplay" has a very precise definintion. It specifies gameplay mechanics: the rules and limitations which govern a game. For example, you can't jump 100 feet in the air in Grand Theft Auto. Things like Gravity and Inertia exist in that game. In Chess, a Pawn can only move forward, and only one space at a time, unless special circumstances are reached.

That is gameplay. It is a very specific term.

But "experience?" That's a much less well defined term. It has no precise meaning, which is why I hate it in this context. I absolutely agree that you can "experience" a game any way you'd like. Do you want to "experience" it by watching pretty things on a 50'' Plasma TV? Go ahead. Do you not consider big screens and technical horsepower to be part of the "experience?" Also fine. Do you think walking around while you play is part of the "experience?" Also your prerogative.

Edit: Replying to your edit: Again, keep this in mind: "Gameplay" and "Experience" are completely different. You know how words can have different meanings? This is such a case. Gameplay is a much more substantial term and, consequently, much more readily validated on an empirical basis. "Experience" is about as nebulous as a term gets, and is entirely decided by the reciever.

It's like the difference between "words" and "understanding." If I speak a sentence, the actual words I speak are not reasonably open for question. The words I stated are the words I stated. However, people's understanding of those words can vary greatly. So too, "Gameplay" and "Experience."

Hey dude, can I touch you? I mean, wow!

Do you realize how rude this is? First, you mock me, implying I must only own a DS because obviously only such losers could possibly believe that 50' HD doesn't matter. Once I post to show that I am not, in fact, a DS only owner, you ridicule me for having a system that's too powerful.

How about you do neither? I haven't been insulting to you. I would appreciate it.

 

[Enron]

Welcome to the internet, chief.

 

[Rolf NB]

What mechanics of VC could not be accomplished on an 8 bit graphics engine?

A NES would have a hard time determining occlusion in a 3D environment. The defensive fire mechanic relies on this.

Anything 3D really, or even 2.5D if you wanted to reduce it to a plane. The fact that you can move any distance in any direction, as opposed to a predetermined four or eight directions on a grid, does change the way games play, and does change the kinds of levels that designers can create.

You'd have a much stronger case if you asked about PSX-level hardware. The examples of good things that wouldn't be possible on an NES are limitless.

 

[Opiate]

A NES would have a hard time determining occlusion in a 3D environment. The defensive fire mechanic relies on this.

Anything 3D really, or even 2.5D if you wanted to reduce it to a plane. The fact that you can move any distance in any direction, as opposed to a predetermined four or eight directions on a grid, does change the way games play, and does change the kinds of levels that designers can create.

This could be very simply solved by making the game 2 dimensional. I'm not sure how 3D space directly affects gameplay, but I'm willing to listen if you have an example.

 

[Vyse The Legend]

The Wii version could display 100 at once.

In comparison, it's still barren.

 

[sonicmj1]

What mechanics of VC could not be accomplished on an 8 bit graphics engine? Honest question. All of the mechanics are completely doable on a Nintendo Entertainment System, I believe.

This is an honest question. Just answer: what mechanic could literally not be achieved on a lower powered system? Just one single mechanic. I can't think of any, so if you'd help me out, I'd appreciate it.

3D environments, with things like height affecting line of sight, and with units being able to be directly above or below each other in a given environment on different floors.

Precise aiming in first person view in order to best maximize chances of hitting one or multiple targets, or in order to maximize the odds of hitting a weak point on a single target.

Probably more importantly, it'd be extremely difficult for an 8-bit game to display everything on field, let the user easily move between different modes of interacting with the environment, and give the user appropriate feedback about what was going on near their units (who could be under fire during their turn), while the user was able to move in real-time in a manner that had any meaningful impact on their tactics.

Even if the mechanics of a game can be adequately translated, an insufficient interface can create huge problems for the end user when it comes to playing the game.

 

[Quixzlizx]

I have a PC running on an i7 board with 2x4870s running 2x24'' dual screen monitors with a 50'' plasma TV hooked up to it. That's what I'm typing on right now. I built it myself. I just posted -- literally yesterday -- about how 90% of my gaming is now done on this PC. Go look it up, if you'd like.

It's a shame you spent all of that money on a computer just to play Nethack and 1990s shareware games. You probably could've half-assed the specs a bit.

What mechanics of VC could not be accomplished on an 8 bit graphics engine? Honest question. All of the mechanics are completely doable on a Nintendo Entertainment System, I believe.

This is an honest question. Just answer: what mechanic could literally not be achieved on a lower powered system? Just one single mechanic. I can't think of any, so if you'd help me out, I'd appreciate it.

For one thing, the arcing/calculating of projectile trajectory requires 3D to be accurately represented. And you didn't say 8-bit graphics engine, you said text-based.

I don't find graphics to be part of the "experience." I can certainly imagine that some people would feel they are, but I don't. I can also certainly imagine someone feeling that playing the game on a train is part of the "experience," and that they'd enjoy it significantly less if they played it at home alone. I don't feel that way, but I can imagine it.

I guess you'll have to ask video game reviewers why they include Presentation/Graphics/Sound categories in their reviews more often than they include the "How the Spring Breeze Felt Flowing Through My Golden Locks As I Reclined Lazily on a Park Bench" category.

 

[Enron]

So there we have it. Technology does not impact enjoyment of games, next gen unnecessary. Welcome to the future of gaming, ladies and gentlemen!

I guess you'll have to ask video game reviewers why they include Presentation/Graphics/Sound categories in their reviews more often than they include the "How the Spring Breeze Felt Flowing Through My Golden Locks As I Reclined Lazily on a Park Bench" category.

Are you making fun of "my" experience? Do you know how rude that is?

 

[Tain]

Because those are two different things. "Gameplay" has a very precise definintion. It specifies gameplay mechanics: the rules and limitations which govern a game. For example, you can't jump 100 feet in the air in Grand Theft Auto. Things like Gravity and Inertia exist in that game. In Chess, a Pawn can only move forward, and only one space at a time, unless special circumstances are reached.

That is gameplay. It is a very specific term.

Mechanics? Sure. That's what it sounds like you're talking about. Mechanics rely on visual an audio cues to make any sense whatsoever, though, and those cues can drastically change how people relate to the mechanics (see: people calling 2.5D games "floaty" because they use polygons). There are certainly games that have mechanics that are too demanding for weaker hardware, too.

But the word "gameplay" means something totally different to everybody, which is why it's the stupidest fucking word on the internet, frankly.

 

[Opiate]

I've seen you take this stance before, but I think in this case, you're overreaching.

Someone has already mentioned the example of Dead Rising. Someone could conceivably mention the recent Red Faction: Guerilla, which has huge levels containing buildings that have very detailed destruction routines which require high levels of processing power.

Dead Rising fix is very simple: make the game a top down 2D game with low end graphics, such as Smash TV. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Smash TV or another similar game actually had more enemies on screen at a single time than Dead Rising did.

Yet simply the number of enemies or objects in an environment could be affected by horsepower (if I remember right, RE4 for PS2 can't have as many enemies onscreen as its Gamecube counterpart, and nobody would argue the Japan phone-only version plays equivalently),

This could have been solved very simply by dramatically lowering the polygon count of each individual zomebie.

[/quote] or the amount of simultaneous players in an online PC shooter like Battlefield 2. [/quote]

This could be solved by a LAN, or even by at home play. People have been playing games at home for thousands of years. In fact, there are games that people play outdoors that feature tens of thousands of people simultaneously: the Wave at baseball parks, for example. Not only can low tech games match the number of multiple players, they can far exceed it.

That's not to say there aren't merits in portable play. Convenience means an awful lot to people, and if they'd rather play on the go, technical benefits (which I'd agree are generally marginal gains) won't matter all that much to them.

I don't particularly care for convenience, but I agree.

 

[donny2112]

For one thing, the arcing/calculating of projectile trajectory requires 3D to be accurately represented.

For the display of the shot, sure.

And you didn't say 8-bit graphics engine, you said text-based.

"Shot is fired."
"Shot is fired at 45 degree initial angle above the horizontal plane."
"Shot strikes combatant in grid A-3-alpha."
"Combatant explodes."

 

[dumbass_]

What mechanics of VC could not be accomplished on an 8 bit graphics engine? Honest question. All of the mechanics are completely doable on a Nintendo Entertainment System, I believe.

GTFO please

Did you even play Valkyria or are you moron just like what other guys saying in here
Valkyria Chronicles missions got big ass 3D maps with no loading were you can walk anywhere and engage with anyone plus you can zoom/Sniper anywhere at the map with Switch from 2d to 3d in less than half a second without loading

Even IF psp did everything "it cant but lets say it did" it wont be as fast or smooth as the ps3 version

And did you even see those cut scenes with those insane effects/graphic/voice acting/motion?

Are you NUTS? wth 8bit NES

vs

 

[sonicmj1]

This could be very simply solved by making the game 2 dimensional. I'm not sure how 3D space directly affects gameplay, but I'm willing to listen if you have an example.

Example 1: I'm sneaking around a base in an attempt to capture it. I'm on a hill overlooking the base. My unit can lob a grenade from my high ground location into the base area without any of the nearby soldiers/targets being able to fire back. Similarly, my unit could edge closer until they had line of sight, and then snipe the target in the head before they could properly aim. The head, not the body.

Example 2: My sniper climbs a watchtower, and can see more of the battlefield. She snipes a unit in cover behind a low wall that wouldn't be a potential target otherwise.

Example 3: My unit walks directly next to a wall beneath a tank on a ridge. The tank can't angle its guns in my unit's direction.

Example 4: My unit is in a trench near a tank. The tank cannot fire on my unit with its machine guns, but can lob a mortar into my trench.

It would be incredibly difficult to provide all these possibilities in a strictly 2D game while still making it at all coherent to the end user.

 

[Zanmato]

VC 2 on psp is fine. The art though...ugh.

 

[Quixzlizx]

For the display of the shot, sure.



"Shot is fired."
"Shot is fired at 45 degree initial angle above the horizontal plane."
"Shot strikes combatant in grid A-3-alpha."
"Combatant explodes."

You're no longer visually aiming, which means the gameplay has been altered.

 

[Opiate]

It's a shame you spent all of that money on a computer just to play Nethack and 1990s shareware games. You probably could've half-assed the specs a bit.

I play the games that are fun. Some of them are low tech, some of them are not. I can play them all in this fashion. I like Yahoo Chess the most: I could run that on a 10 year old machine. I also enjoy Team Fortress 2: that requires a much more recent machine. I would not have minded at all if Valve had made the game for a 10 year old machine, however. In fact, I still play HL1 mods like Natural Selection regularly, which are indeed 10 years old.

For one thing, the arcing/calculating of projectile trajectory requires 3D to be accurately represented. And you didn't say 8-bit graphics engine, you said text-based.

I can run with either example. How about an Atari 2600? I don't care.

I guess you'll have to ask video game reviewers why they include Presentation/Graphics/Sound categories in their reviews more often than they include the "How the Spring Breeze Felt Flowing Through My Golden Locks As I Reclined Lazily on a Park Bench" category.

Isn't this obvious? Because they, personally, care about graphics and/or technology. Does that make them "correct?" Again, obviously not. No more correct than you. Or I, for not caring.

I'll assume the manner in which you've answered this implies "I don't have any examples myself." Otherwise, you probably would have provided more specific examples, rather than relying on reviewers to do the heavy lifting for you. They also can't do the heavy lifting, I'm afraid.

 

[donny2112]

You're no longer visually aiming, which means the gameplay has been altered.

Now we're back to gameplay is the visuals. If you accept that visuals is part of the gameplay, then yes. If you accept that we're all playing representations of 1s and 0s, and that with enough work on our part, we could do the behind-the-scenes calculations without the benefit of visual aid, then, no. The underlying code is all math. People were doing the math and imagining the results in their heads long before video games. I certainly prefer seeing a nice pretty picture on the screen to represent my 1s and 0s, but the actual functions of the game could be accomplished without the picture part.

 

[Paracelsus]

Now we're back to gameplay is the visuals. If you accept that visuals is part of the gameplay, then yes. If you accept that we're all playing representations of 1s and 0s, and that with enough work on our part, we could do the behind-the-scenes calculations without the benefit of visual aid, then, no. The underlying code is all math. People were doing the math and imagining the results in their heads long before video games. I certainly prefer seeing a nice pretty picture on the screen to represent my 1s and 0s, but the actual functions of the game could be accomplished without the picture part.

Then you can just go and play Travian instead of Warcraft, am I correct? Why go for videogames if you just need numbers and barely a figurative representation.

 

[Opiate]

Example 1: I'm sneaking around a base in an attempt to capture it. I'm on a hill overlooking the base. My unit can lob a grenade from my high ground location into the base area without any of the nearby soldiers/targets being able to fire back. Similarly, my unit could edge closer until they had line of sight, and then snipe the target in the head before they could properly aim. The head, not the body.

Example 2: My sniper climbs a watchtower, and can see more of the battlefield. She snipes a unit in cover behind a low wall that wouldn't be a potential target otherwise.

Example 3: My unit walks directly next to a wall beneath a tank on a ridge. The tank can't angle its guns in my unit's direction.

Example 4: My unit is in a trench near a tank. The tank cannot fire on my unit with its machine guns, but can lob a mortar into my trench.

It would be incredibly difficult to provide all these possibilities in a strictly 2D game while still making it at all coherent to the end user.

I think your last sentence is admitting, implicitly, that it still possible to produce these examples on 2D hardware, it just seems needlessly complicated to you.

I think we'll just have to end the conversation there. I will freely admit that most people would not prefer the complexities inherent to lower end design, if you will admit that gameplay of such types is indeed possible on such hardware -- it just wouldn't be your preference.

 

[dumbass_]

Now we're back to gameplay is the visuals. If you accept that visuals is part of the gameplay, then yes. If you accept that we're all playing representations of 1s and 0s, and that with enough work on our part, we could do the behind-the-scenes calculations without the benefit of visual aid, then, no. The underlying code is all math. People were doing the math and imagining the results in their heads long before video games. I certainly prefer seeing a nice pretty picture on the screen to represent my 1s and 0s, but the actual functions of the game could be accomplished without the picture part.

man... this is not POKEMON.... did anyone here play valkyria?
What are you saying is like creating Halo game or killzone but you cant aim, everything is text based wth is that? :lol :lol :lol

 

[donny2112]

Why go for videogames if you just need numbers and barely a figurative representation.

Because it's a whole lot easier to use the pictures instead of going through the work of calculating everything outside of the game.

What are you saying is like creating Halo game or killzone but you cant aim,

You can aim just fine. The game takes your 3-D orientation relative to the other objects it renders and determines if your shot would hit it. Without pictures, you'd have to take all the 3-D coordinates involved and do it yourself. Definitely not easier or more fun, but if the computer can do it, then so can you.

 

[Enron]

Man, this guy sure does like to hear himself talk.

You would think that someone with an education from an Ivy League school could at least make a coherent argument, instead of talking in circles.

 

[dumbass_]

Because it's a whole lot easier to use the pictures instead of going through the work of calculating everything outside of the game.

I can not wait for assassin creed 3 Text based Version :lol i cant believe you guys are serious

 

[Quixzlizx]

Now we're back to gameplay is the visuals. If you accept that visuals is part of the gameplay, then yes. If you accept that we're all playing representations of 1s and 0s, and that with enough work on our part, we could do the behind-the-scenes calculations without the benefit of visual aid, then, no. The underlying code is all math. People were doing the math and imagining the results in their heads long before video games. I certainly prefer seeing a nice pretty picture on the screen to represent my 1s and 0s, but the actual functions of the game could be accomplished without the picture part.

I did in fact state that I think that visuals are part of the gameplay, since they alter how you interact with the underlying mechanics. If you're going to state that it's all just 1s and 0s anyway, then you don't really need any game more sophisticated than a coin-flipping simulator.

 

[Hobbun]

Dead Rising fix is very simple: make the game a top down 2D game with low end graphics, such as Smash TV. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that Smash TV or another similar game actually had more enemies on screen at a single time than Dead Rising did.



This could have been solved very simply by dramatically lowering the polygon count of each individual zomebie.

So what it sounds like to me, is graphics and sound have absolutely no factor in playing video games for you. It is all gameplay. That you would be fine if they released VC 2 with blocky pixels and little blips for sound. Or, didn't you even say it could even be reduced to text for all that mattered to you?

Well, I am glad that graphics, sound and presentation mean nothing for you in your games. But in the age of HD and where games are pushing the limits in graphics and sound, it means a lot to many of us.

The 'experience' that a prior poster was referring to was the entire enjoyment of the game. With not only the gameplay, but the story, the dialogue, the voice acting and yes, the graphics and sound as well.

What made the first VC such a great game was not just the gameplay, how innovative it was, but beautiful graphics with its excellent sound in music and voice acting. Little things, like with surround sound. Someone is speaking, who is not on the screen yet, and their voice comes out of your back/side speaker.

The entrancing song that Rosie sings (and those of us who have played the game, knows when I am talking about).

The graphics of the game itself, that showed the expression of each of the characters so well.

All of these things could not be accomplished with a presentation of an 'NES type game'.

And really, even though the PSP can do these to a decent extent (minus the Surround Sound), it still is less than the 'experience' of what the PS3 can offer. And really, that is what a lot of us are disappointed with in hearing it moving to the PSP. However realistic or logical it is for SEGA.

 

[Kilrogg]

Don't be rude to Opiate, or I shall roar at you. He's one of the coolest guys here.

Spoiler

Don't worry, Opiate, my prices aren't too expensive.

 

[Opiate]

Then you can just go and play Travian instead of Warcraft, am I correct? Why go for videogames if you just need numbers and barely a figurative representation.

Why not go outside, indeed? I can't tell if this is rhetorical. Yes, many people do indeed prefer outside gaming to video games. They prefer the experience "outside" offers to the one "giant TV" does.


The important thing to remember is that the game has to exist. For example, would I prefer to play an FPS outside? I actually might. Paintball is a reasonable approximation of an FPS, and many people clearly prefer it. However, I have no friends that play and I have no easy access to the sport, so I don't play it.

Conversely, I play VC on the PS3 because it actually exists there. No one else plays VC anywhere else, so I play it on the PS3.

Now we're back to gameplay is the visuals. If you accept that visuals is part of the gameplay, then yes. If you accept that we're all playing representations of 1s and 0s, and that with enough work on our part, we could do the behind-the-scenes calculations without the benefit of visual aid, then, no. The underlying code is all math. People were doing the math and imagining the results in their heads long before video games. I certainly prefer seeing a nice pretty picture on the screen to represent my 1s and 0s, but the actual functions of the game could be accomplished without the picture part.

I'd add, however, that we must continue to recognize the difference between game mechanics and whatever the heck "experience" is. There is absolutely nothing about seeing the arc of a shot that is part of the rules or limitations of the game. What your character can do is not even slightly affected by your ability to see it in 3D space: how and where he can shoot are the gameplay mechanics. That does not change.

It is very clear that some people have visuals and gameplay so intimately rapped together in their heads that they cannot differentiate between the two.

 

[lupinko]

Since everybody is just talking about Valkyria 2 PSP now, does anyone think Sega could do a special Valkyria 2 PSP bundle? And given the Go coming out this year, it would probably a Go bundle right?

This is all wishful speculation.

 

[Rolf NB]

For the display of the shot, sure.



"Shot is fired."
"Shot is fired at 45 degree initial angle above the horizontal plane."
"Shot strikes combatant in grid A-3-alpha."
"Combatant explodes."

That's so inefficient. Animations and highlights and whatnot can convey (bulk) information so much faster than text popups. Not just speaking of Valkyria Chronicles here.


Opiate,
God Of War et al could be reduced to top-down perspectives, but you'd lose aerial attacks and juggles. You'd also lose precise facing. You'd lose a lot of the cues, which are pretty fundamental to the interaction with the game if you ask me. Or you could reduce it to a side perspective, retain aerial, but lose crowd control.
Sure, you could make an NES game where an angry guy beats up a lot of greek shit, but that's not what God Of War is. It being 3D gives it more depth, more nuances that you can't express on a limited machine.

I'd also argue that 3D graphics themselves impact the way a game world is discovered, and that falls into gameplay as well. Designers can guide players with simple light/dark patterns, if not more obvious colors and fixed camera angles. Being confused about where exits are, which way forward is etc may not be "gameplay" in the strict sense but still a concern in how a game can be structured. Picture Metroid Prime on an NES. Four or five exits from some rooms, on different elevation levels. Even the map is (necessarily) 3D. Top-down, if you could even build it, the game would be indicipherable.

 

[Opiate]

So what it sounds like to me, is graphics and sound have absolutely no factor in playing video games for you. It is all gameplay. That you would be fine if they released VC 2 with blocky pixels and little blips for sound. Or, didn't you even say it could even be reduced to text for all that mattered to you?

Well, I am glad that graphics, sound and presentation mean nothing for you in your games. But in the age of HD and where games are pushing the limits in graphics and sound, it means a lot to many of us.

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

The 'experience' that a prior poster was referring to was the entire enjoyment of the game. With not only the gameplay, but the story, the dialogue, the voice acting and yes, the graphics and sound as well.

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.

What made the first VC such a great game was not just the gameplay, how innovative it was, but beautiful graphics with its excellent sound in music and voice acting.

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

 

[donny2112]

And given the Go coming out this year, it would probably a Go bundle right?

So, they'd bundle a download voucher with the system?

 

[Quixzlizx]

I'd add, however, that we must continue to recognize the difference between game mechanics and whatever the heck "experience" is. There is absolutely nothing about seeing the arc of a shot that is part of the rules or limitations of the game. What your character can do is not even slightly affected by your ability to see it in 3D space: how and where he can shoot are the gameplay mechanics. That does not change.

It is very clear that some people have visuals and gameplay so intimately rapped together in their heads that they cannot differentiate between the two.

Apparently condescension is a more sophisticated form of being insulting, so it clears your bar.

 

[dumbass_]

Ok Can I have my opinion, too, please? Without being called a moron or a troll?

Can i have my opinion please? to me Anyone who says that anything on the PS3 is possible on 8 bit consoles is either troll or a moron

Your opinion does not matter when it's against all logic and common sense

 

[Opiate]

That's so inefficient. Animations and highlights and whatnot can convey (bulk) information so much faster than text popups. Not just speaking of Valkyria Chronicles here.

Perhaps. One coudl also claim it's more precise: for example, I wouldn't have to eyeball the shots anymore. I could give very exact calculations and aim much more precisely.

However, that's not the real point. The real point is: it's possible. The mechanics can indeed be accomplished. Whether you prefer 3D games is entirely up to you. It's clear that some people (Japanese people in general, for example) seem to vastly prefer 2D games. Others, who I know personally, prefer text based adventures.

Opiate,
God Of War et al could be reduced to top-down perspectives, but you'd lose aerial attacks and juggles. You'd also lose precise facing. You'd lose a lot of the cues, which are pretty fundamental to the interaction with the game if you ask me. Or you could reduce it to a side perspective, retain aerial, but lose crowd control.

You could accomplsih all of these in a different way. For example, make Kratos become much larger to show him getting closer to the camera as he "jumps." Or, alternatively, make him turn a different color to indicate "I have jumped"

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.

 

[Cipherr]

Hey dude, can I touch you? I mean, wow!

You got f'ing owned, it figures that something stupid and sarcastic would be all you could come up with when he tossed that rig in your face. :lol Its always the retards with the anime avatars too.

 

[Enron]

You got f'ing owned, it figures that something stupid and sarcastic would be all you could come up with when he tossed that rig in your face. :lol Its always the retards with the anime avatars too.

F'ing owned by what? Have you been reading this thread? Do you have any idea what this guy is arguing?

 

[Opiate]

Apparently condescension is a more sophisticated form of being insulting, so it clears your bar.

I'm sorry if I seemed condescending: it wasn't intentional. It can be difficult and frustrating to maintain a completely even tone when being affronted so directly by multiple people (i.e. troll and moron and so forth).

I apologize if I offended.