-
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.
Tim Rogers: "they've (Nintendo) set us (gaming) back a generation WAAAAAAH"
- Thread starter Weisheit
- Start date
TwinIonEngines said:
It's the most ethereal, you can tell immediately when a game has good gameplay and has really great talent who designed it as opposed to the mediocre yearly installments coming out of some studios. There's a difference between what is merely acceptable and playable and what is, to use a art world hyperbole, sublime.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
TwinIonEngines said:
I think this way too actually. Unfortunately it's not something many people will grasp. I think it needs to be understood though to make truly incredible games.
PepsimanVsJoe
Member
Deku said:If it can then it probably becomes a manufactured process. You can't truly understand or capture how great art is created.
This is true as well...hmm...
I guess the most I can hope for then is for people to familiarize themselves with "the classics".
Pffft, imho, what has REALLY set us back is that not enough people have HD TVs. Which means to fully enjoy your new console, pack in 800 more Euros... that would be one FAT Christmas present.
On the other hand, if a lot of people had HD TVs but no HD console, they'd soon want one to fully enjoy your TV. Simply a smart move by Nintendo to wait.
Low price= many a parents favourite console.
On the other hand, if a lot of people had HD TVs but no HD console, they'd soon want one to fully enjoy your TV. Simply a smart move by Nintendo to wait.
Low price= many a parents favourite console.
FoxSpirit said:
I still would really love to see some data that shows that percentage of HD TV owners that don't use them with any HD signals. I think a lot of people like the fact that they are flat, widescreen, and even their old DVDs can look a good bit better. Not saying they can't recognize or don't care about the increased resolution, but I have a feeling that the other features are more important to a lot of consumers.
mepaco said:
That is pretty much the case. Someone in my office is getting a 'gift' for 25 years of service at the company, and she is turning it down if its a bulky TV, but wouldn't mind if its a thin flat screen LCD. The idea of whether is HD or not does not enter the calculation.
Shin Johnpv
Member
Safe Bet said:
Bullshit. As an artist myself (my undergrad degree is in fine arts) I completely dissagre. Some of the greatest artists the world has ever seen did so with shitty tools. Look at the renaissance, those paintings weren't made with modern day oils and perfectly matched colors. They were made with HOME MADE oil paints and pigments. Those paintings are still better than what most people do.
Many artists consider the challenge of working with lesser tools the true art form. Any artist who tries to claim his work isn't good because of the tools, is a shitty artists. That's the god's honest truth right there.
PataHikari
Banned
FoxSpirit said:
Japan has the highest HDTV adoption rate of the three regions.
Japan is also where the Wii is most popular.
Stinkles said:
Simply outputting 720p with its current GPU and memory would be pretty useless. Getting a new GPU and adding more GDDR3 would drive the costs of the system up (Nintendo's making <$50 on it and weren't willing to take a loss on a risky system like the Wii) and the cost of development up (i.e. third parties wouldn't even look at the wii twice if it was higher), thereby placing Nintendo in third place again. Let me re-iterate that the limited third party support they are getting is certainly better than NO third party support. They wouldn't be winning this gen if the Wii wasn't exactly the way it was.
Get something better than a crappy LCD-tech flat panel with 1366x768 resolution and 480p looks fine, at least in my experience. LCDs are the absolute worst at scaling and everything that isn't native res looks like shit. That said, most people with HDTVs watch stretched standard def analog cable on them, and don't notice anyway.
And are people seriously trying to infer that videogames are anywhere near reaching 'art'? :lol The last game that the forum-dwellers here told me was 'art' (Bioshock) has such laughably bad dialogue and contrivety to it, along with a terrible engine that seems to coat everything in wax and/or plastic, that I wonder what you people are smoking sometimes.
One problem with modern TVs that everyone but Microsoft is poorly equipped for are the stupid fantasy-land panel resolutions that are on the market now. I have seen multiple 1680x1050 hybrid TVs/PC monitors in action, and they all have scalers worth shit. Everyting except for native res and maybe 720p looks completely atrocious on them, and they are selling like gangbusters.
Then there are the legions of 1366x768 panels in proper living-room TVs, where the scalers may be better starting at a certain price range (600+ monies in my experience), but it's still a crapshoot. Every console should just integrate a scaler and output at the native panel res (which implies VGA or free-form HDMI). I swear 50% of people complaining about Wii graphics do so only because they have it hooked up to a TV with crappy scaling.
It's an even bigger problem for the PS3 because games that would use non-standard framebuffer sizes have to be scaled twice, which kills any hope of a clean image.
Tim Rogers OTOH is just full of shit.
Then there are the legions of 1366x768 panels in proper living-room TVs, where the scalers may be better starting at a certain price range (600+ monies in my experience), but it's still a crapshoot. Every console should just integrate a scaler and output at the native panel res (which implies VGA or free-form HDMI). I swear 50% of people complaining about Wii graphics do so only because they have it hooked up to a TV with crappy scaling.
It's an even bigger problem for the PS3 because games that would use non-standard framebuffer sizes have to be scaled twice, which kills any hope of a clean image.
Tim Rogers OTOH is just full of shit.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
StevieP said:
fixed.
Duckhuntdog
Member
PepsimanVsJoe said:
So true. Even when people who create games, by and large, also do not consider games to be art, rather products that have art "in them." This debate of games as art rages on, fueled by the insecurities and want of acceptance by a group of people who hope by labeling games as art, will by proxy, somehow have society at large no longer look down upon them and their hobby/job. You know what? Who cares.
Games should be judged on the one thing that makes them stand out. That which makes one game better than another: gameplay. Outside of that the rest is, as the Pepsiman states, if frosting. Bioshock on the Wii that recreates the gameplay 100% is still Bioshock even though the graphics have been toned down.
And this thread, which keeps going, should have ended long ago. But it's hard to end a thread when the hundred million fans of a system that dominated the last two gens, now are stuck with a $600 investment that is more of less stuck in last place and having games slowly being taken away. And having to experience that creates fear, and that fear drives the silly notion of being set back a generation, because the competition, which you thought marginalized has now coming roaring back to take your crown that.
Complacency sure breeds silly notions. To that end, Sony fans- Karma is a bitch, suck it up and deal with it, you are beginning to whine worse in a single year, than Nintendo fans have for a decade.
Here comes the wrath of GAF upon me...
Duckhuntdog said:
Anyone find it ironic you said the phrase having gaming slowly being taken away as if the ps brand of fans can make such a complaint. This group needs to grow up sega and nintendo fans lost a lot of games to the ps brand shouldn't be that hard to accept the phrase what comes around... Sony screwed it up for ya, I blame ms mostly for this generation problems, but sony made it worse by band wagonning the retared ideology of the hd generation marketing bs.
Duckhuntdog said:
I hope you don't consider this "wrath", I could care less about the "Games are/are not art" debate (It's based entirely on semantics and opinion) and as an "Xbot", I feel that my position hasn't changed much from last gen (Our console seems to have the second spot down for the time being, and lots of games coming out that I want and that I know will sell good so therefore will continue to come out..no worries)....but I think that this "graphics don't matter...at all" angle is BS....if graphics and other technical things didn't matter, we wouldn't have new consoles every 6 or 7 years (okay, 4 or 5 for Microsft, har har). I don't see how the "gameplay" could be the same without some of the effects used in the game...a big daddy that looks like a cardboard box wouldn't be threatening, a little sister that didn't look real wouldn't draw sympathy, etc etc etc...
The only thing thats set back the HD generation is the fact the HD generation was rushed ahead of its time.
Most TVs are Non-HD still and most people who do own HDTV have it simply because thats the TV available to buy not cause they gave a shit or even know how to use HD Signals etc.
HD Gaming is a Victim of Sony and Microsoft rushing technology to market that wasn't ready to be used even if it is viable technology.
Nintendo knew it and they opted out of HD this Gen and instead focused on rebuilding the Nintendo Empire. Next Gen They will have their WiiHD thats in the 250 range and they will also have the Power of the Nintendo Brand behind them again.
Most TVs are Non-HD still and most people who do own HDTV have it simply because thats the TV available to buy not cause they gave a shit or even know how to use HD Signals etc.
HD Gaming is a Victim of Sony and Microsoft rushing technology to market that wasn't ready to be used even if it is viable technology.
Nintendo knew it and they opted out of HD this Gen and instead focused on rebuilding the Nintendo Empire. Next Gen They will have their WiiHD thats in the 250 range and they will also have the Power of the Nintendo Brand behind them again.
Shin Johnpv said:
Not to derail the topic (any further), but artist back then worked under different conditions compared to modern artists. Putting a child as an artist aprentice at the age of 6, only to have him work as an artist for the rest of his life isn't acceptable today. But we'd get some damn fine artists if we did it on a regular basis.
Comparing computers to pen and paper isn't very accurate anyway. I'd guess you could ask the hypothetical question wether or not the great artists of old would have been able to produce even better works, if they had access to modern versions of the classical tools (oil colors, for example). Just like Photoshop can produce better results then MS Paint on Windows 93.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
segarr said:
I wholeheartedly with you. I ws going to say something very similar to this.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
It is the case that some posters are more equal than others. Drinky's had some fun here poking the bee's nest and people played into it as usual, but it's too bad Drinky felt the need to bring an unrelated bit of slur into it this time.HylianTom said:
Oh well though, I can assure you Drinky doesn't give a rat's ass about losing the respect or whatever of internet denizens. This is pretty much the only place he acts like a frothing moronic asshole, so that should tell you a great deal about what he thinks of GAF.
the thoroughbred
Member
Lobster said:
We have a winner. Nice one.
Add to that. It'd probably be some vintage wine, a box of expensive cubans. They could just release a pokemon trailer, and overshadow this peice of news. Yes a game that's already released.
Wii might not be doing its previous numbers in Japan, but here in the UK, everyone I know, pretty much is planning on getting a Wii sometime in the future. Their isn't anyone I know, that doesn't actually want one. Soon that novelty may wear off, until a new fad is introduced, but if they keep a steady amount of headliners, it will sell.
Segata Sanshiro
Member
I dunno. I was basically told to "deal with it" when I had a problem with a particular racist avatar that people were using, so I can tell you right now the rules are flexible and arbitrary. Much as I hate to pass along advice that pissed me off so much, I'm afraid you're going to have to "deal with it".HylianTom said:
Eteric Rice
Member
the thoroughbred said:
It's been about a year now. It's obvious the novelty isn't going anywhere at this point.
DCharlie
And even i am moderately surprised
well done , this thread will have surely made Tim proud.
you turned a Tim Rogers thread into a shocking "games is art" thread...
why not go the whole hog and emulate the man by starting to talking about that most delicious bowl of ramen you had when you met with suicide survivor ex-punk rock outfit leading lady Junko, who you just happened to bump into while getting chocolate covered sunflower seeds from a small local market in the back streets of Seoul after a Soul Calibur tournament?
you turned a Tim Rogers thread into a shocking "games is art" thread...
why not go the whole hog and emulate the man by starting to talking about that most delicious bowl of ramen you had when you met with suicide survivor ex-punk rock outfit leading lady Junko, who you just happened to bump into while getting chocolate covered sunflower seeds from a small local market in the back streets of Seoul after a Soul Calibur tournament?
DCharlie said:
Just go with the flow. This isnt the only thread where the discussion on page whatever is completely off base from the original, it's just another thread to be read.
And I fully expect people to talk over this post and keep on discussing whatever they're discussing. I think we're on HDTV penetration now.
segarr said:
So you prefer a big daddy that looks to be coated in wax? Because that's not what metal looks like. Nor does a little sister look anything close to being real, even in the uncanney valley sense. Bioshock could easily be created on last generation hardware, with toned down visuals (though, a big daddy would still look like a big daddy - not a cardboard box) and in fact Bioshock's predecessor, System Shock 2, was a superior game in all ways that matter. But this is a tangent to the discussion.
People always throw out "physics" and "ai" as being the reason for the HD generation consoles, but really... it all comes down to visuals. Physics, and AI especially, all depend on the talent of the programmers and the amount of effort put into them, and far less on power. Visuals are really the majority of the advantage you gain with the HD consoles, and if you're a graphics whore, you'd own and operate a gaming PC anyway, because it would hand either HD console its ass. The other problem, as was mentioned ad-nauseum, is that most HDTVs absolutely suck at scaling. All scaling. Even 720p looks like shit on many of the LCD TVs out there. But if you have a good TV, 480p looks perfectly fine.
As for Drinky's slurs... well, he's been banned once or twice for them (for a day) but he's clearly a joke character
and a Nintendo fanboy
the thoroughbred
Member
LCGeek said:
A lot of good stuff said in this page. But I agree, and have done ever since the start. I totally blame MS this time. They had already made a huge loss, and couldn't keep slogging away at a dead horse (xbox), so they started again. Neither of the other 2 wanted to, but were forced to. I reckon they both would have been happy to start about now. So around 1 year later or so.
Eteric Rice
Member
Amazing what a monk can do with some colored sand.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbvSms-1yj4
Who the hell needs a brush?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UsPd37HZ0Ok
Hell, who needs paint?
StevieP said:
I'm not going to sit here arguing heavily over the graphics of the game....my point was that I think the game looks beatiful, and I know that my experience would have been lesser had it not looked as good as it does. I understand what you're getting at...."It's all CG so none of it really looks 'real"...I can't be bothered to get this petty about it..yes, wax is no more metal then cardboard, but when I'm sitting down playing the game, my eyes don't seem to think the same thing.
Would I pick "wax" over metal? Of course not. I hope for games to come out one day that resemble life as close as possible (Not saying their shouldn't be games that don't try to do this though).
As for everything else...I certainly wasn't jumping into a "why their should be new consoles" argument...all I'm trying to say is that graphics matter to me, and that I find that better looking games will have a better chance of creating a better experience for me. May sound like "graphics whoring" but it is what it is. I don't see why some gamers feel they are being so much more "authentic" or something just because they don't care about graphics, or won't admit that they do.....
I respect graphics for a lot more then just "ohhh look at how real it is"...when I'm playing a game like Bioshock, I really get submerged in it......and the way it looks is a big reason for that. The beginning scene last gen would barely have moved me....but when they put that demo up, and you realize for the first time that the game has started and that you can actually move your character...to me, thats something amazing.
I just hope that there is enough talented artist to keep up with what technology will allow them for in the future.
Stinkles said:
Not everyone is running out to buy a new TV. It's not the kind of thing you really replace on a whim. By the time the Wii is sent out to pasture, then it could be argued that 720p or higher should be a no-brainer.
Case in point: Every SKU of the PS3, and boy are there a lot of SKUs, comes with composite cables; the XBox 360, which was supposed to usher in the HD-era, can't support an HD-disc format without the assistance of a $200 add-on.
Duckhuntdog
Member
LCGeek said:
Well I said games, not gaming. I don't see gaming being taken away from PS3 brand, although Sony did a great job of playing up the multimedia aspect of the system in the beginning more so than the game console aspect, MS is guilty as well.
But I do see games being taken away from the PS3 and given to other systems, and eventually see 360 games befalling the same fate, as well as the Wii.
It is very easy to cast stones at Nintendo, to blame them, who else are the Sony and MS fans going to blame but the system that is successful? But it was not Nintendo that brought us to this crux. I agree that if we were to realistically cast blame, it should be rightfully towards MS and Sony, for pushing the gaming aspects of their systems as the lowest bullet point on the feature list, below such essential parts of gaming such as HD and Blu-ray, for without these games could not be done.
As I said, Karma is a bitch.
Rhazer Fusion
Member
Duckhuntdog said:
I think this was mentioned, but I think Microsoft is mostly responsible for starting the generation a year earlier than scheduled which has lead to some of these problems we are facing. I think that is one of the reasons the PS3 was so expensive because Sony wasn't expecting to have to bring it out a year earlier. I think that PS3 was schedled for release a year later with a much more reasonable price.
Joe Molotov
Member
Safe Bet said:
They should redo the Sistine Chapel with CGI. Better tools, baby!
Sweet Jesus.
Look, examine other medias and forms. Those that are most comparable to videogames. Those forms are the arts and toys I would suppose. Arts including the standard arts (paint, sketch, sculpture, architecture, theater, literature), our modern arts(film, photography) and music. Toys is toys, self explanatory. Also, realize that the arts and modern artists have been very interested in involving the audience into the art and making their pieces more interactive. Theater has always tried for this. Videogames have accomplished this from the start.
Now what has advanced these forms? What does evolution depend on? Within the standard arts, evolution of materials has helped in the expanse of arts, and the affordability and availability of these materials have helped the expanse of arts. Mostly these, for the sake of our argument, 'tech upgrades' have helped the survivability of these arts. In paint, the periods of which paints were used had a lot to do with helping the paint last longer. From Fresco, to oil and linseed, to our more modern plastic based paints, there was always an idea of trying to get the paint to stick. Of course oils allowed for mixture and their natural oiliness as well, which is an aesthetic quality. Something like Architecture certainly depends on technological advancements, but sometimes these advancements aren't just materials but ideas that provide stronger structure or a more hospitable feeling. From the columns to arches, the material depended on what was nearby. It was the structure and idea that was important. For things like feng shui or Frank Lloyd Wright, the natural feeling of comfortability is not based on 'tech upgrades' but a mental understanding, an idea.
Within the evolution of art, new ideas are always slow to be accepted, but they must exist for the very evolution has spawned from these ideas. Impressionism broke the tie to realism, which lead to abstraction, which leads to a certain human understanding of how we think, which then much later on influences things like film and music. What is scarier to see on film, the actual monster walking or the shadow of the monster coming? And what is scarier, a beautiful 360 degree rotation of a very detailed monster... or just one fixed angle of the monster coming towards you?
To reach these ideas, you need people. As stated before, material advancements help the affordability and availability of these forms. Even in toys, you need mass production to reach people. Art was often tied to the upper class, and it was the cheapening of costs that allowed others to get into the arts. The more people there were, the more ideas and eventually the ideas lead to evolution.
Toys though, are meant for everyone. Granted, there are high end toys and low end toys, but the most popular and beloved aren't the fanciest generally. The original legos I believe were wood based, but for more availability they became plastic. Legos are a great toy, but they weren't made great by any advancement. It was just a carpenter's idea.
So if you look at similar forms to videogames, you find that evolution depends not upon technology. Evolution depends upon people, because evolution depends upon ideas. The problem with modern thinking in games is that they are so tech reliant, that they rely on a new coat of paint to cover up the same old idea. This elitist, hi tech, boys only club mentality is the very death of evolution. What is literature without Austen and Emily Dickinson? Of the stories of the poor and distraught? The 'hardcore' argument is that we should stick to our elitist upper class realism and never evolve. Just new paint on the same portrait.
What I find disturbing is not what the Wii has done, but what the developers are afraid of... being creative. Surely, you can still have ideas without a wiimote, but what is the incentive when you can just rely on tech upgrade? The success of Wii is finally a financial vote towards new ideas. It also opens up your hated 'blue ocean', which opens up more people and more ideas. There are far too much laziness out there and I don't mean lazy ports. Even the modern epics are lazy to me. There are too many people involved in videogames who do not understand videogames. And this is dangerous beyond the quality of games. How do you think the industry will defend itself and its freedom of speech if it can not describe its own self or human quality?
I could also go into the new avenues motion control opens up, but I think I have done enough damage to the general idiocy in this thread as is. Maybe the people spouting off don't understand these things, but that is why I just wrote them.
The easiest way to answer your rant is to say there isn't any difference in the proposed "laziness" of those who make Wii games, and those who make 360/PS3 games - only in one spectrum the "same old ideas" have Wiimote functionality tacked on, and in the other the "same old ideas" have better visuals, physics, A.I., scale, and more tacked on.
You can get new ideas on any platform, or evolution of old ideas on any platform. Some suck, some are good. 360 and PS3 has some, Wii has some. In the end, though, what I care about is how those games are: were they fun, and are they a meaningful leap over what I played before? In the case of Wii, the answer is almost always "no". Motion controls have thus far proven to be a tame, unjustified jump at best ...some superior things, mostly inferior things. In the case of 360, it is almost always "yes"... even if the advancement is just relating to visuals.
Evolution in games, distilled to its very core, is simply a question: "Are the games better?" If they are, there you go. You don't need any of this other bullshit being tossed around. You don't even need people, since some of the best games and best ideas are sold to nobody at all. The people on the creative end, those making the games, they'll be everywhere. They're not only going to be on Wii, they're not even mostly going to be on Wii. They'll go where they think their games are best suited, ultimately, and if that relies on motion control so be it. Maybe those ideas will actually be worth half a damn. But so far, the evolution I've seen - where it counts, that is to say where the best and most fun games are - is not on Wii. It has done nothing. I don't care that my mother enjoys it, I don't care that my grandma enjoys it. These shallow, tech demo mini-game bullshit compilations are the antithesis of what is good in games. And until that changes, you can pretend Wii is an "open door" for new ideas all you want... it has demonstrated none of that at all.
You can get new ideas on any platform, or evolution of old ideas on any platform. Some suck, some are good. 360 and PS3 has some, Wii has some. In the end, though, what I care about is how those games are: were they fun, and are they a meaningful leap over what I played before? In the case of Wii, the answer is almost always "no". Motion controls have thus far proven to be a tame, unjustified jump at best ...some superior things, mostly inferior things. In the case of 360, it is almost always "yes"... even if the advancement is just relating to visuals.
Evolution in games, distilled to its very core, is simply a question: "Are the games better?" If they are, there you go. You don't need any of this other bullshit being tossed around. You don't even need people, since some of the best games and best ideas are sold to nobody at all. The people on the creative end, those making the games, they'll be everywhere. They're not only going to be on Wii, they're not even mostly going to be on Wii. They'll go where they think their games are best suited, ultimately, and if that relies on motion control so be it. Maybe those ideas will actually be worth half a damn. But so far, the evolution I've seen - where it counts, that is to say where the best and most fun games are - is not on Wii. It has done nothing. I don't care that my mother enjoys it, I don't care that my grandma enjoys it. These shallow, tech demo mini-game bullshit compilations are the antithesis of what is good in games. And until that changes, you can pretend Wii is an "open door" for new ideas all you want... it has demonstrated none of that at all.
Amir0x said:
There are only two problems I have with this. First, better is very subjective. Take a game like Madden 07 (08 is too buggy) as an example. I bet most gamers would take the 360 version over the Wii version, even though I feel the motion controls added much more to the game than increased visuals have. It all depends on your preferences and priorities.
Second, the cost of developing a true HD game for 360/PS3 is prohibitively high for unproven ideas or startup dev studios. I know that their online stores help alleviate this to a point, but if I'm creating a full fledged game but just don't have the money to spend on HD art assets, the Wii is going to be my system of choice. I think the reduced dev costs make it an appealing platform for games that have unproven sales potential.
I was somewhat in agreement with what you said, until I read this:
And this is the exact elitist argument that etiolate was mentioning. First of all, some of the greatest games of all time are simple, high-score affairs where there is NO story and JUST enjoyment. And to say that motion control has demonstrated nothing at all, in terms of 'new ideas', clearly the market seems to disagree.
Amir0x said:
And this is the exact elitist argument that etiolate was mentioning. First of all, some of the greatest games of all time are simple, high-score affairs where there is NO story and JUST enjoyment. And to say that motion control has demonstrated nothing at all, in terms of 'new ideas', clearly the market seems to disagree.