POWERSPHERE
Banned
I hate video games fixation on hardware. It's so childish.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Motherboard: "ResolutionGate," etc. Are Why Video Games Don't Get Enough Respect
- Thread starter Orlics
- Start date
Breakfast at Noon
Member
explain to me, like explaining to a child why oh why this was not a issue when EVERY website did this for 360 vs ps3 but come this gen it is all "oh no no no it makes no difference, people should ignore it"
fucking hypocrites everywhere.
fucking hypocrites everywhere.
It's not like one impedes the other. If an enthousiast site reviews a game he can make insightful critisism and point out that version X runs at half the framerate (which at release, is relevant Information to your readers). You don't need to dedicate large amounts of text to the issue, but tech does impact how the game plays in ways it does not for music/movies/books. Ignoring tech completely will not make for better game critisism, high profile reviewers in other media have knowledge on how their stuff is made too.
Yes, console wars are annoying and immature. I'll take them over the celebrity culture surrounding movies and music anyday though.
Breakfast at Noon
Member
i suppose none of these people use bluray then?
end of the day it makes no difference.
end of the day it makes no difference.
BRocknRolla
Member
It seems to me, a lot of folks in the games press feel we should care about nothing at all.
As you said, it's entirely possible to care about the technical side of things and the content at the same time. "Respected" pop culture mediums do this all the time (I'm sure forums have burned to ash over movie debates in regard to 3D and frame rate even though they had little to do with the content of the movie, and music is likewise rife with technical debate). When people are deeply informed, they care about even small aspects, and just because some people don't understand, comprehend, or appreciate why someone else might care about the technic aspects, doesn't mean they should spend their time shouting down those conversations.
If you want to talk about content, write an article about it. Start a conversation. Don't tell other people that what matters to them is irrelevant.
I can definitely agree with that.
Well that's not true, moviegoers also care about the technology. For instance, when people see movies in 48fps they tend to say that they are unpleasant and look like soap operas. Book readers also care about how they are reading books as well, you hear people complaining about the dissapearance of books in print, and there are arguments over what is the best e-reader. Wherever you go you are going to find people arguing over these kinds of things.
Imperfected
Member
And that's without even getting into the arguments you'd have if you had people trying to publish books in smaller or more difficult to read fonts as compared to the industry standards. I think if a publisher started putting all their work out in 6p Wingdings to save on ink and paper costs, you'd hear quite a few readers take a sudden interest in "book resolution".
And let's not even get started on audiophiles and the lengths they go to for the most hi-definition audio experience.
You might even go so far as to say every entertainment medium cares very much about "resolution" or its closest equivalent, it's just that most other media are much older and have established near-universal standards for their formats.
Motherboard, and Vice in general, do post a lot of articles about the importance of media content.
Tell that to Nvidia and ATI. Thats the root of all evil.
Yup this idea that people don't give a shit about tech in other "more respected" mediums is complete bunk. HFR being the most obvious recent example. Or 3D or IMAX, digital projection, quality of CGI effects, surround sound and THROWS UP HANDS OH WHY WONT THEY JUST TALK ABOUT THE MILITARY JINGOISM IN HOLLYWOOD BLOCKBUSTERS THE CHILDREN, THE CHILDREN OH WOE UPON WOE.
Ahem.
Ahem.
Melchettsmoustache
Member
This article screams of obfuscation and misdirection. Deliberately setting up to downplay a performance and hardware issue by offsetting it with why gaming itself is suffering from lack of originality. Funnily enough the machine they seem to be protecting is largely aimed at the same client base who only really want to invest in Re-skinned annually offered games, which is actually the topic they seem to be trying to misdirect us to. Maybe the article is a cloak and dagger trolling of the Xone and it's many dude bro owners?
geek_box12
Banned
The point is one should take a back seat and one should be at the forefront
HiredN00bs
Member
I would say that one console maker charging $100 more over its direct competitor, despite the fact that it sometimes runs multiplatform games at half the resolution or half the framerate, is a significant topic to discuss when it comes to video games.
Risk Breaker
Member
panda-zebra
Member
The article all over the place at times, probably due to being asked for a piece he couldn't fully get behind or believed in or maybe as you suggested the motivation might have been altogether less sincere. As I pointed out earlier in the thread, the author's sudden repositioning on such issues in a space of just 2 months smacks of a kind of handle-turning journalism that lacks integrity or a love of the subject matter.
The two articles don't contradict each other though. While he mentions improved performance in the NBC review toward the end he points out that it isn't much of a big deal.
Open Source
Banned
Article is just an vehicle for taking pot shots at Call of Duty and Tomb Raider. That we're only supposed to care about games that try to be "culturally and politically relevant" is the real argument being made.
Basically, it's saying that if you play games for fantasy/escape/pure entertainment, you're doing it wrong, since immersion (by way of increased resolution/frame rate) is a very important factor in those efforts, but is far less a factor in terms of establishing cultural and political relevance.
So yeah, this article can be safely ignored.
Basically, it's saying that if you play games for fantasy/escape/pure entertainment, you're doing it wrong, since immersion (by way of increased resolution/frame rate) is a very important factor in those efforts, but is far less a factor in terms of establishing cultural and political relevance.
So yeah, this article can be safely ignored.
panda-zebra
Member
pffft, one is all about same game side-by-side, other is how utterly preposterous and lowering the tone such actions are.
Jason's Kotaku take on the irresponsible article is interesting stuff. The difference between someone who lives and believes in his subject matter and someone given an assignment in return for a cheque.
EatChildren
Currently polling second in Australia's federal election (first in the Gold Coast), this feral may one day be your Bogan King.
So given this article is really a direct response to my own piece (the source of Tomb Raider's framerategate), I figure it warrants some kind of response from myself, or at least my thoughts on the matter.
TLDR: I can appreciate the guy's perspective and empathise with what he's saying, but I do think this particular piece is wholly misguided and laden with inaccurate assumptions that fail to properly articular and argue the issue he's presenting.
Longer version: This is an article of assumptions and misguided frustration.
It assumes finer technical discussion has no association with video games as an entire medium. This is not true. Video game development and the course of interactive software history is inherently linked to technological progress of computing and peripheral hardware. Video game artistic merit, whether we talking about chosen art direction and method of rendering, audio quality and composition, method of narrative presentation, and so on, are also deeply linked to technical advancements.
It assumes finer technicalities, in this case framerate, have little to no impact on video game play. This is not true. Framerate is deeply linked to visual oddities such as tearing and choppiness, and control latency and response time. This is of such importance to the medium that many developers optimise their engines and assets with the specific goal of meeting a high framerate, one applicable to the genre and/or technical performance intentions of the team (eg: racing titles). Ironically, the author lists Oculus Rift as technological accomplishments worth reporting. Yet Oculus Rift's technology has been routinely discussed in combination with framerate and game performance, essential technical details to ensure the Oculus Rift device operates with minimal latency and thus delivers the most convincing experience possible (as intended).
It assumes knowledge of framerate differences between a single title across two pieces of hardware is unnecessary information. This is not true, and in the most extreme case neglectant to a customer's right to be as informed and educated as possible on a future purchase. A person who owns both platforms, if a minority and a tech enthusiast, is likely (and rightly) to want the release build with the largest improvements. Those own a single system, again possibly tech enthusiasts, have the right to this information to guage whether or not the price of purchase warrants their perceived value of the build's performance and quality.
It assumes no technical discussion is warranted for Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition. This is not only untrue, but the irony here is this is more applicable than normal for a game like Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, an enhanced re-release of a prior generation title fundamentally marketed on reputed technical improvements. TR
R's claim to fame is that it's the same popular, well received game from the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 generation, re-released on the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 with numerous stand-out technical accomplishments that arguably improve the play and experience of the game in question. To avoid technical discussion in this case is to ignore the literal technical and artistic differences between the old build and the new, both advertised and developed with intention, making all discussion of the new build exclusively limited to regurgitating impressions and opinions of play and narrative already seen from the original release.
It assumes my piece was written with the goal of providing commentary or insight into the role of video games in society and culture of today. This is untrue, for obvious reasons that no such effort is made in this area of journalism, nor is there any indication to subvert attention away from those pieces to my own. As the author indicates, this information is given as it "appeals mostly to gearheads".
It assumes the onus is on all journalists and enthusiasts of the medium entire to avoid discussion of and interest in particular topics because they do not fit the perspectives, interest, and ultimate goal of one particular person (in this case, the VICE author). This is not true. It is not up to any one individual, him, myself, or anyone here, to define the interests in others, and certainly not what is or is not important the medium entire, industrially and commercially.
And finally, it assumes finer technical discussion is either unwarranted in gaming media yet warranted in other mediums, or that finer technical discussion is unwarranted in all mediums. This is untrue. If it were true, the concept of the "audiophile" would not exist, nor would discussions of audio quality between vinyl, cassett, CD, digital sampling rate, and so on exist. Discussion between 3D vs 2D in cinema would not exist, nor would comparisons of The Hobbit's 48fps reel to 24fps. The gigantic industry of consumer products ranging from audio players to televisions, surround sound to headphones, projector versus plasma versus LCD, and so on; none of this would exist. Technical discussion of the mediums/media they enjoy is a natural point of interest among human beings, and is far from limited to entertainment media.
The article is written from the perspective of someone frustrated with the state of modern gaming journalism, and this is something I'm sure most if not all of us can empathise with. But the frustration is misguided, and instead of providing his own analysis and insight on where gaming media needs to grow, he directs his frustrations at one particular topic that is simply of no interest or concern to him. He does not care about the technicalities. He does not see why other people would care. And that's fine. But it is not up to him to dictate whether these discussions warrant existing at all, nor is his disinterest an objective viewpoint to which all other people must be judged.
TLDR: I can appreciate the guy's perspective and empathise with what he's saying, but I do think this particular piece is wholly misguided and laden with inaccurate assumptions that fail to properly articular and argue the issue he's presenting.
Longer version: This is an article of assumptions and misguided frustration.
It assumes finer technical discussion has no association with video games as an entire medium. This is not true. Video game development and the course of interactive software history is inherently linked to technological progress of computing and peripheral hardware. Video game artistic merit, whether we talking about chosen art direction and method of rendering, audio quality and composition, method of narrative presentation, and so on, are also deeply linked to technical advancements.
It assumes finer technicalities, in this case framerate, have little to no impact on video game play. This is not true. Framerate is deeply linked to visual oddities such as tearing and choppiness, and control latency and response time. This is of such importance to the medium that many developers optimise their engines and assets with the specific goal of meeting a high framerate, one applicable to the genre and/or technical performance intentions of the team (eg: racing titles). Ironically, the author lists Oculus Rift as technological accomplishments worth reporting. Yet Oculus Rift's technology has been routinely discussed in combination with framerate and game performance, essential technical details to ensure the Oculus Rift device operates with minimal latency and thus delivers the most convincing experience possible (as intended).
It assumes knowledge of framerate differences between a single title across two pieces of hardware is unnecessary information. This is not true, and in the most extreme case neglectant to a customer's right to be as informed and educated as possible on a future purchase. A person who owns both platforms, if a minority and a tech enthusiast, is likely (and rightly) to want the release build with the largest improvements. Those own a single system, again possibly tech enthusiasts, have the right to this information to guage whether or not the price of purchase warrants their perceived value of the build's performance and quality.
It assumes no technical discussion is warranted for Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition. This is not only untrue, but the irony here is this is more applicable than normal for a game like Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition, an enhanced re-release of a prior generation title fundamentally marketed on reputed technical improvements. TR
R's claim to fame is that it's the same popular, well received game from the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 generation, re-released on the Xbox One and PlayStation 4 with numerous stand-out technical accomplishments that arguably improve the play and experience of the game in question. To avoid technical discussion in this case is to ignore the literal technical and artistic differences between the old build and the new, both advertised and developed with intention, making all discussion of the new build exclusively limited to regurgitating impressions and opinions of play and narrative already seen from the original release.It assumes my piece was written with the goal of providing commentary or insight into the role of video games in society and culture of today. This is untrue, for obvious reasons that no such effort is made in this area of journalism, nor is there any indication to subvert attention away from those pieces to my own. As the author indicates, this information is given as it "appeals mostly to gearheads".
It assumes the onus is on all journalists and enthusiasts of the medium entire to avoid discussion of and interest in particular topics because they do not fit the perspectives, interest, and ultimate goal of one particular person (in this case, the VICE author). This is not true. It is not up to any one individual, him, myself, or anyone here, to define the interests in others, and certainly not what is or is not important the medium entire, industrially and commercially.
And finally, it assumes finer technical discussion is either unwarranted in gaming media yet warranted in other mediums, or that finer technical discussion is unwarranted in all mediums. This is untrue. If it were true, the concept of the "audiophile" would not exist, nor would discussions of audio quality between vinyl, cassett, CD, digital sampling rate, and so on exist. Discussion between 3D vs 2D in cinema would not exist, nor would comparisons of The Hobbit's 48fps reel to 24fps. The gigantic industry of consumer products ranging from audio players to televisions, surround sound to headphones, projector versus plasma versus LCD, and so on; none of this would exist. Technical discussion of the mediums/media they enjoy is a natural point of interest among human beings, and is far from limited to entertainment media.
The article is written from the perspective of someone frustrated with the state of modern gaming journalism, and this is something I'm sure most if not all of us can empathise with. But the frustration is misguided, and instead of providing his own analysis and insight on where gaming media needs to grow, he directs his frustrations at one particular topic that is simply of no interest or concern to him. He does not care about the technicalities. He does not see why other people would care. And that's fine. But it is not up to him to dictate whether these discussions warrant existing at all, nor is his disinterest an objective viewpoint to which all other people must be judged.
so why does most of the media froth at the mouth about a new iphone when it is mostly just a bit faster?
and it isn't the simple fact of resolution/framerate, it is what that says about the potential of the relevant machines. I don't think most people say CoD is shit becuase of the resolution - just that the PS4 version is better. The content remains the same.
And that data is useful to extrapolate what might be possible later on in the generation, which can help to inform someone making a purchasing decision based on potential.
and it isn't the simple fact of resolution/framerate, it is what that says about the potential of the relevant machines. I don't think most people say CoD is shit becuase of the resolution - just that the PS4 version is better. The content remains the same.
And that data is useful to extrapolate what might be possible later on in the generation, which can help to inform someone making a purchasing decision based on potential.
shouamabane
Member
Wow, what a crappy article.
The end lf the NBC review says the improvements to last- gen games aren't really all that important and may not be worth the price of upgrade. That is in line with his(?) belief that resolution and FPS aren't bery important.
Crab Milk Mickey
Member
That article lost me at "smart and re-engaging retooling of a game franchise" when talking about Tomb Raider 2013.
lifeexpectancy
Member
If you've honestly never had a video game become an emotional experience then I feel sorry for you. I'm not being sarcastic or insulting you, believe me. I just truly feel bad for anyone that hasn't experienced how moving certain games can be.
I'm not saying all games are, or even most. In fact it's a very small fraction of all the games out there. But video games as a medium certainly do have the POTENTIAL to be, and in some cases HAVE been, a deeply artistic, resonant, and emotional experience for the player.
Just as any other creative work has the potential to be merely entertainment and can also be elevated to the level of art, so do video games. I've seen plenty of plays and movies that were merely entertaining, but not artful. I've also seen plays and movies that were gut-wrenching or alternatively joyous masterpieces. I've seen paintings that were dime store trash, paintings that were routine mass-market landscape studies, and paintings that brought me to tears just looking at them.
Likewise I've seen video games run the entire gamit from trash, to profit-chasing drivel, to cinematic entertainment, to emotional works of art.
Just because you haven't experienced this aspect of the video game medium's potential does not mean it doesn't exist.
In fact, I think the big problem is that people don't take videogames seriously ENOUGH, including their creators often, which is why so many games are trash.
PairOfFilthySocks
Member
What the heck are you trying to say here? Douchebags unfamiliar with a medium react to enthusiasts with derision? Stop the presses!
panda-zebra
Member
BigTnaples
Todd Howard's Secret GAF Account
What a terrible article.
Games Journalism said:
Oh yes, let's completely write off a formerly unique series becoming a third-person shooter with some ignorant statements about obsolescence with no attempt at insight or discussion, because taking potshots at people caring about something that affects gameplay is more important than discussing the path of least resistance AAA developers now take for "updating" a franchise.
I don't even need to go into things like 60 FPS having a "minor impact", when the writer's complete lack of self-awareness about the ignorance they spout is right there in the first part of the article.
Well, it's technically pretty smart to take the approach with (or perceived to have) the most mainstream appeal, too bad it leads to total genre and gameplay homogenisation.
CadetMahoney
Member
pretty much. Quite laughable how MS messed up. ppl will look back as the prime example of console not-to-do's as it's poor sales grind to a halt in every region by the of the gen. It's not looking good now either as it's already squandered it's marketshare everywhere.
flatearthpandas
Member
Is "finer technical discussion" what we're calling resolutiongate now?
I disagree with this. The article doesn't complain that people talk about framerate, but that they talk about it so much, possibly at the expense of other material. Framerate differences can be covered in one sentence of an article.
Outright Villainy
Member
Agreed on all points. Discussion of both the artistic and technical side of games are both important, and the two are inexorably linked, far more than film. You'll never see anyone claiming tech is all that matters in games, and the discussion of tech does not preclude discussing the artistic merit either.
Not sure what point you're trying to make... Using your analogy, we're pretty much talking about the same movie (Tomb Raider: Definitive Edition) with a DVD vs Bluray experience (even though in this case it's FPS afaik).
CadetMahoney
Member
A better analogy would same movie compared on the formats/
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Basically!
The vast majority of folks don't mind if the latest RHCP CDs are poorly mastered, or if the encoding of the latest blockbuster on bluray left behind a few artifacts. I do agree to an extent that, for as large a group that gaming encompasses, they care too much about the superficial technical aspect.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
Yeah but people that read Grantland for video games are going there for a specific reason. It's going to have a deeper/different take on the game. That's very different than the "how" does it play article that's needed for all reviews.
I disagree that "how does it play" needs to be in every review. I'd love a review site that cuts past all of that, and gives me non-traditional games coverage.
Everybody sets their owns standards. Enthusiasts tend to care not only about the content of work in their medium but also in the technical achievement - and the more they care, the less they are able to focus on the content if the delivery mechanism is not above some threshold. This may even be happening at placebo levels - I've failed a couple tests to distinguish 30 and 60 frames, and never passed a 60/120 test.
The fact that I care about frame-rate is an enrichment to my life, provided that I'm not responding to changes that are literally indistinguishable to my own eye. A choice to distinguish between quality does make people happy in the way a hobby does - it is fun to like better coffee, or be interested in high fashion, or to follow great new up and coming musical artists.
From this point on, an enthusiast must distinguish between choices, and thus has a personal or interpersonal debate: Xbox vs Playstation vs PC, Team A vs Team B, Vinyl vs Digital, etc. Online arguments about video games, as with all online arguments, make a community appear disgusting.
What is different about video games is how much the press focuses on the debate/argument. This might be because games do not have canonical versions: they are released in many forms in a short period of time. This might be because, while all mediums have commodity products in addition to art, only commodity products receive significant marketing in video games, and thus a criticism outlet cannot achieve exposure without also being a product details outlet.
I believe that criticism-focused outlets like Kill Screen, Gameological, and so on will grow and distinguish themselves enough to change this in the near future. This will be bolstered by the increasing attention on video games by the old media. These forms will come to dominate traditional games journalism into a not only enthusiast but also niche press, which can continue to foster toxicity without painting the medium negatively.
The fact that I care about frame-rate is an enrichment to my life, provided that I'm not responding to changes that are literally indistinguishable to my own eye. A choice to distinguish between quality does make people happy in the way a hobby does - it is fun to like better coffee, or be interested in high fashion, or to follow great new up and coming musical artists.
From this point on, an enthusiast must distinguish between choices, and thus has a personal or interpersonal debate: Xbox vs Playstation vs PC, Team A vs Team B, Vinyl vs Digital, etc. Online arguments about video games, as with all online arguments, make a community appear disgusting.
What is different about video games is how much the press focuses on the debate/argument. This might be because games do not have canonical versions: they are released in many forms in a short period of time. This might be because, while all mediums have commodity products in addition to art, only commodity products receive significant marketing in video games, and thus a criticism outlet cannot achieve exposure without also being a product details outlet.
I believe that criticism-focused outlets like Kill Screen, Gameological, and so on will grow and distinguish themselves enough to change this in the near future. This will be bolstered by the increasing attention on video games by the old media. These forms will come to dominate traditional games journalism into a not only enthusiast but also niche press, which can continue to foster toxicity without painting the medium negatively.
You can easily imagine a critical review which simply states "the game controls awkwardly on occasion" or "all of this is tempered by your ability to overcome a control scheme of confusing choices". Or simply, "a worthwhile struggle".
Mushroomer25
Member
PS3 games were often chronically glitched, and offered an almost broken experience on third-party software. ONE games run fine - they just look worse. Let's also consider the fact that the landscape of games journalism has gone miles in the past generation.
I think it's interesting that the author ends with "It's time the game critics...". Really focuses on how we don't have a distinction between game critics and commodity writers, and they should be in many ways different things. Commodity reporting can be summarized simply:
Platform:
Resolution:
Median frame rate:
Anti-aliasing:
Because we don't have a distinction, people who want to work as critics are trying to turn commodity reporting in to criticism, expanding the above into paragraphs and interviews, and generally making us look like tools.
Platform:
Resolution:
Median frame rate:
Anti-aliasing:
Because we don't have a distinction, people who want to work as critics are trying to turn commodity reporting in to criticism, expanding the above into paragraphs and interviews, and generally making us look like tools.
mckmas8808
Mckmaster uses MasterCard to buy Slave drives
But that's where Grantland comes in. But sites like IGN and Gamespot have to cover the technicalities of the game like framerate. It'll be a bad article for them not to cover that.
Similar threads
- Locked