• 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.

Game Developer magazine joins the next-gen hate train (Wii > *.*, Blu-ray sucks, etc)

Feb 3, 2007
10,323
1
1,110
hauton said:
Red Steel/Twilight Princess/Super Mario Galaxy would've all worked fine if they were hamfisted into normal controls. Except you'd lose the point of them.
Did you deliberately choose titles that barely use the Wiimote in any meaningful way to reinforce your fairly weak point, or was it just lucky happenstance?
 

charlequin

Banned
Oct 19, 2005
26,635
1
1,405
hauton said:
Same with GTA4. That's not how those games worked.
The GTA with less diverse gameplay than either of the previous two series entries on PS2 is the game you pick to highlight as "couldn't have been done on previous consoles"? Really?
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
Jul 23, 2004
37,730
0
0
hauton said:
To everyone whining that GTA4/MGS4/*insert next-gen game here* would've worked, albeit with compromises, on the Wii/PS2/Xbox/GC/whatever:

Red Steel/Twilight Princess/Super Mario Galaxy would've all worked fine if they were hamfisted into normal controls. Except you'd lose the point of them.

Which is exactly the same thing with a game like MGS4.

It's a cinematic experience. It's not meant to be something visually and aurally average. You're supposed to be taken in and WOWED. Of course it would be possible on another console. So would GTA4. But at what loss?
Nailed it. Expect freakouts though.
 

Cartman86

Banned
May 31, 2006
8,581
0
0
Seattle, WA
www.twitter.com
_leech_ said:
Sony has effectively won a war that is no longer being fought. It's been demonstrated time and again that the mainstream user is willing to watch streamed videos and movies on YouTube, or torrent them on The Pirate Bay, or even download them at only slightly lower quality from legitimate portals like the Xbox 360 or Netflix.
:|
Youtube and going to Pirate Bay is free. Of course we don't mind if its shitty quality if its free. if i pay for it I want something quality. If I pay $2 to rent a DVD quality movie from Xbox Live then okay. But to own? I want the best of the best.
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
MrNyarlathotep said:
Did you deliberately choose titles that barely use the Wiimote in any meaningful way to reinforce your fairly weak point, or was it just lucky happenstance?
I chose them because they were big titles (well maybe not Red Steel) that came to my head first thing. For some, they (and I emphasize the latter two) define the console.

What does that have to do with anything though?

The point still stands - you could hamfist any game that used the Wiimote into normal controls and it would work - terribly. Wii Sports, Wii Play, whatever. You'd lose the whole point. Which is what would happen if you tried putting MGS4 to PS2.

But way to address my real point. *thumbs up*
 

Cartman86

Banned
May 31, 2006
8,581
0
0
Seattle, WA
www.twitter.com
MrNyarlathotep said:
Did you deliberately choose titles that barely use the Wiimote in any meaningful way to reinforce your fairly weak point, or was it just lucky happenstance?
If he had chosen Wii Sports or something that uses the motion controls even more his point would remain. It's possible to play Wii bowling on another console, but without the motion control you miss the point for that specific game.
 

MisterHero

Super Member
Jul 24, 2007
30,498
127
1,355
abload.de
hauton said:
To everyone whining that GTA4/MGS4/*insert next-gen game here* would've worked, albeit with compromises, on the Wii/PS2/Xbox/GC/whatever:

Red Steel/Twilight Princess/Super Mario Galaxy would've all worked fine if they were hamfisted into normal controls. Except you'd lose the point of them.

Which is exactly the same thing with a game like MGS4.

It's a cinematic experience. It's not meant to be something visually and aurally average. You're supposed to be taken in and WOWED. Of course it would be possible on another console. So would GTA4. But at what loss?
That's true, but so far meeting the tech demands of games like MGS4 cost Sony the lead market position.

Maybe for gamers that isn't such a bad thing, and maybe it isn't such a bad thing that Sony is upping their 1st-party output, but there were costs.
 

Classic_Gs

Member
Jan 3, 2008
3,535
0
0
duketogo88 said:
"The average consumer" doesn't exactly apply to everybody now does it?
Exactly. I want the latest, sharpest and highest of hi-res graphics that I can get. Crazy Ken promised 4D and I believe!!
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
charlequin said:
The GTA with less diverse gameplay than either of the previous two series entries on PS2 is the game you pick to highlight as "couldn't have been done on previous consoles"? Really?
OK are you seriously trying to tell me that GTA4, with the amount of stuff going on to immerse the player in its world, would've been possible on the PS2?

If they tried GTA4 on PS2 they wouldn't have been able to put the same number of citizens on the sidewalks without having a 2m draw distance. Never mind the AI, the physics, the cars and the environment.
 

ItAintEasyBeinCheesy

it's 4th of July in my asshole
Aug 26, 2007
21,325
0
0
Australia
Starchasing said:
so whats sony doing that is so new?
What anyone doing thats new? somethings always been done is some way, shape or form on a different platform or PC, its just some have chosen to build their whole system around a single concept.

And it doesnt need to be NEW if its good and thats what Sony are doing game wise.
 

K.Jack

Knowledge is power, guard it well
Mar 10, 2007
24,186
0
1,270
MrNyarlathotep said:
How this gens playing out;


Denial: - "Yeah, the Wii is a third pillar, wii60 / PSthwii ftw!"

Anger: - "Fucking casuals are killing real gaming"

Bargaining: - "Well as long as we get some of the big AAA titles, I don't really mind I guess"

Depression: - "If this gen belongs to the Wii I'm going to quit gaming. No, for reals."

Acceptance: - "Looks like graphics aren't the be all and end all of gaming after all. Huh."


OP articles at stage 5. Most of you posters are at 2.
I'm at stage 10

Revelation into Divinity: - "Holy fuck. PC gaming really is the shit. Console Wars lol."
 
Feb 3, 2007
10,323
1
1,110
hauton said:
I chose them because they were big titles (well maybe not Red Steel) that came to my head first thing. For some, they (and I emphasize the latter two) define the console.
Well choosing those three particular titles as 'wii defining games' is akin to picking Pefect Dark 0, Splinter Cell Double Agent and Halo 3 as 'games that could only possibly be done with the power of the 360'.

ie really poor choices to illustrate your point.

Cartman86 said:
If he had chosen Wii Sports or something that uses the motion controls even more his point would remain. It's possible to play Wii bowling on another console, but without the motion control you miss the point for that specific game.
Personally I find the control scheme of a game intrinsically more important than the graphics.

If I play vanilla DOS Quake at 640x480, or Dark Places with all effects on, it is still the same game. Less so if I'm playing it with a keyboard than with a keyboard and mouse with mlook on.

hauton said:
If they tried GTA4 on PS2 they wouldn't have been able to put the same number of citizens on the sidewalks without having a 2m draw distance. Never mind the AI, the physics, the cars and the environment.
The AI, physics and environment in GTA4 really aren't all that you know... the vast majority of the city in GTA4 is still unenterable buildings, and there are still the trademark collapsible lamp posts and indestructible trees. It is a fact though that the scope of the game has diminished this gen from it's predecessors.
 

Haunted

Member
Nov 16, 2006
78,207
0
0
steamcommunity.com
So instead of the HD consoles convincing the casuals of their superiority (condemning Wii to "fad" status like many have predicted), the Wii is slowly converting the enthusiasts/professionals and we see articles like this appearing in fucking Game Developers Magazine?

I said wow.

MrNyarlathotep said:
How this gens playing out;

Denial: - "Yeah, the Wii is a third pillar, wii60 / PSthwii ftw!"

Anger: - "Fucking casuals are killing real gaming"

Bargaining: - "Well as long as we get some of the big AAA titles, I don't really mind I guess"

Depression: - "If this gen belongs to the Wii I'm going to quit gaming. No, for reals."

Acceptance: - "Looks like graphics aren't the be all and end all of gaming after all. Huh."


OP articles at stage 5. Most of you posters are at 2.
Kübler-Ross. nice.
 

Starchasing

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,921
0
0
K.Jack said:
I'm at stage 10

Revelation into Divinity: - "Holy fuck. PC gaming really is the shit. Console Wars lol."
I dunno where i am but i want to play Diablo 3

excellent art direction + hi res graphics + awesome sound :(
 

Mamesj

Banned
Jul 30, 2007
8,124
0
0
This is the moment I knew would happen, but hoped wouldn't. Devs/Journalists see the popularity in the Wii and reexamine what a game system needs, then bash the PS3/360 accordingly.
 

Starchasing

Member
Sep 11, 2006
3,921
0
0
MrNyarlathotep said:
How this gens playing out;


Denial: - "Yeah, the Wii is a third pillar, wii60 / PSthwii ftw!"

Anger: - "Fucking casuals are killing real gaming"

Bargaining: - "Well as long as we get some of the big AAA titles, I don't really mind I guess"

Depression: - "If this gen belongs to the Wii I'm going to quit gaming. No, for reals."

Acceptance: - "Looks like graphics aren't the be all and end all of gaming after all. Huh."


OP articles at stage 5. Most of you posters are at 2.
this should be quoted on every single thread like this

you win this thread sir
 

Chiggs

Gold Member
Jan 20, 2005
13,812
3,913
1,820
Atlanta
K.Jack said:
I'm at stage 10

Revelation into Divinity: - "Holy fuck. PC gaming really is the shit. Console Wars lol."

I'm at stage 9, pretty much the same as you, but I like to mix it up with the ATI fanboys. :D
 

antiloop

Member
Jun 20, 2006
6,905
1
0
Why couldn't we stay with NES. It had everything. Ergonomical controllers, classy design, cartridges, fun games, graphics, sound.
 
Jan 16, 2007
2,065
0
0
T dot Oh
www.capybaragames.com
Haunted One said:
So instead of the HD consoles convincing the casuals of their superiority (condemning Wii to "fad" status like many have predicted), the Wii is slowly converting the enthusiasts/professionals and we see articles like this appearing in fucking Game Developers Magazine?

I said wow.


Kübler-Ross. nice.
so, because its game developer magazine they aren't allowed to have opinion pieces.

btw, brandon sheffield is easily one of the best game journos out there.
 

Cipherr

Member
Dec 15, 2007
28,080
0
1,025
Kansas City Missouri
Why do I get the feeling you exaggerated your little wrap up at the bottom of the original post. If he did say that word for word, then you have my apologies, but if you just threw all that on the end of your post "PS2 graphics is all we will ever need" even though he didn't exactly SAY that for more thread hits, then shame on you.
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
MisterHero said:
That's true, but so far meeting the tech demands of games like MGS4 cost Sony the lead market position.

Maybe for gamers that isn't such a bad thing, and maybe it isn't such a bad thing that Sony is upping their 1st-party output, but there were costs.
Well yeah, and that was Sony's gamble.

This will probably be extremely off-topic, but here goes:

Sony decided that hardware power would be the best way to deliver the most compelling experiences this generation.

Microsoft likewise, with their own choices of hardware.

Nintendo chose another idea, thinking a different control method would be best.

I think that's a fair assessment of all three (minor points aside, such as how Microsoft focused on an online experience with Live, how Sony fostered indie development on PSN, etc.). And each one of them has their merits. Beefing hardware means better visuals, obviously. But also audio, physics, AI, scale. There are tons of examples of each of these, from Gears of War to MGS4. Introducing innovative controls also helps. The Wii is much more accessible, because there isn't some 24-button controller to master. It allows for several new gameplay innovations. It downplays graphics.

But what does it matter? Bad developers are bad developers. Lazy developers are lazy. You can give them a PS3 devkit and they can make an ugly mess. You can can give them a Wii devkit and they'll churn out a WWII borefest with a waggle gimmick tacked on.

Good developers will always make good games. Great developers will always make great games. Innovative developers will always make innovative games. Katamari Damacy used something that was in ever since PS1. And it was one of the most innovative games of last generation. Shadow of the Colossus managed to look amazing while pulling off a gargantuan scale, in environment and enemies. And it was running on the weakest console of them all. What I'm trying to say is that hardware makers can only make improvements that they think will help developers make great games. It's up to them to do it.

Innovation is the buzzword these days. Has the Wii fostered a lot of it? Undeniably. But it also has a lot of "me-toos" running at the back trying to latch onto the craze and churning out pathetic crap. Has the Playstation 3/360 fostered a lot of gr4phx-whoring vapid shit? For sure. But it has also brought to many some of the best experiences this generation.

Wii doesn't "kill gaming". PS3/360 doesn't "kill gaming". It's what developers make and what we buy (which influences the former) that determines that. If shit developers don't close down and their shit games sell well and good developers don't have incentive to put effort and heart into their stuff, then we're all fucked.
 

Haunted

Member
Nov 16, 2006
78,207
0
0
steamcommunity.com
Cromulent_Word said:
so, because its game developer magazine they aren't allowed to have opinion pieces.

btw, brandon sheffield is easily one of the best game journos out there.
no no, you totally misunderstood, I'm praising the author and the article.
 

Threi

notag
Mar 22, 2007
23,605
0
1,220
hauton said:
Well yeah, and that was Sony's gamble.

This will probably be extremely off-topic, but here goes:

Sony decided that hardware power would be the best way to deliver the most compelling experiences this generation.

Microsoft likewise, with their own choices of hardware.

Nintendo chose another idea, thinking a different control method would be best.

I think that's a fair assessment of all three (minor points aside, such as how Microsoft focused on an online experience with Live, how Sony fostered indie development on PSN, etc.). And each one of them has their merits. Beefing hardware means better visuals, obviously. But also audio, physics, AI, scale. There are tons of examples of each of these, from Gears of War to MGS4. Introducing innovative controls also helps. The Wii is much more accessible, because there isn't some 24-button controller to master. It allows for several new gameplay innovations. It downplays graphics.

But what does it matter? Bad developers are bad developers. Lazy developers are lazy. You can give them a PS3 devkit and they can make an ugly mess. You can can give them a Wii devkit and they'll churn out a WWII borefest with a waggle gimmick tacked on.

Good developers will always make good games. Great developers will always make great games. Innovative developers will always make innovative games. Katamari Damacy used something that was in ever since PS1. And it was one of the most innovative games of last generation. Shadow of the Colossus managed to look amazing while pulling off a gargantuan scale, in environment and enemies. And it was running on the weakest console of them all. What I'm trying to say is that hardware makers can only make improvements that they think will help developers make great games. It's up to them to do it.

Innovation is the buzzword these days. Has the Wii fostered a lot of it? Undeniably. But it also has a lot of "me-toos" running at the back trying to latch onto the craze and churning out pathetic crap. Has the Playstation 3/360 fostered a lot of gr4phx-whoring vapid shit? For sure. But it has also brought to many some of the best experiences this generation.

Wii doesn't "kill gaming". PS3/360 doesn't "kill gaming". It's what developers make and what we buy (which influences the former) that determines that. If shit developers don't close down and their shit games sell well and good developers don't have incentive to put effort and heart into their stuff, then we're all fucked.
Didn't want to post in this thread, but this is a great post.
 

Pachael

Member
Jun 8, 2004
6,056
0
0
Melbourne, Australia
MrNyarlathotep said:
How this gens playing out;


Denial: - "Yeah, the Wii is a third pillar, wii60 / PSthwii ftw!"

Anger: - "Fucking casuals are killing real gaming"

Bargaining: - "Well as long as we get some of the big AAA titles, I don't really mind I guess"

Depression: - "If this gen belongs to the Wii I'm going to quit gaming. No, for reals."

Acceptance: - "Looks like graphics aren't the be all and end all of gaming after all. Huh."


OP articles at stage 5. Most of you posters are at 2.
Quoted again for truth. There are some battles that can't be overcome, and the Wii this gen is one of them.
 

XiaNaphryz

LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
Nov 5, 2005
52,177
0
0
SF Bay Area
_leech_ said:
Of course, the funniest thing about this is that it's coming from Game Developer magazine, where every other page is an ad for new technologies and engines. In fact, the page on the immediate right of this editorial is an ad for NaturalMotion, which apparently didn't add anything to GTA IV.

:|
I wasn't even aware new technologies and game engines had to be restricted to 360 or PS3 platforms only. What does the adverts in the magazine have to do with the editorial content? Why the hell wouldn't there be ads for middleware and other stuff in a magazine for game developers? Especially since game devs get free subscriptions to begin with?

That said, I really enjoyed the FFCC:MLAAK post-mortem that was in the last issue.
 

exoduster

Member
Nov 5, 2004
50
0
0
www.necrosoftgames.com
Hello people!
this is brandon sheffield, by the way...

first - I agree with what hauton says, to get that out of the way.

Second, the point of this article was not at all that next-gen is pointless, and I would hope that anyone reading it would see that...if not, well, maybe that's my fault.

The point was rather that we often talk about the day when we will reach the point when graphics don't matter from the perspective of selling a game. My point was that for the average consumer, we may well have reached that point already. Of course next-gen games will keep coming out, this appeals very much to a certain element of the hardcore (personally I'd like to see more high-res 2D games, but, well...I'm just holding out hope for KOF XII).

Except in certain cases, like racing games or maybe exploration games that need sweeping vistas, most of the time the graphics don't actually enhance gameplay. Sometimes they do, but by and large, what makes a good game is the way it plays, as hauton says. So my point is that if we're already there, then we can sort of stop talking about the graphics plateau, because it's basically been reached for most consumers.

Sure, MGS4 sold more than MGS3 - but it had a whole lot more push behind it than MGS3 ever did, since sony had a whole lot invested in that. I mean it was bundled with some systems, after all!

To whoever said it was a dumb editorial - I hope you read the article, not just the excerpts. If you read it and still feel that way, that's perfectly fine, but please make sure you know full well what you're actually discussing.

The point above the point (I am trying to avoid saying meta like a douchebag...but hey, I just did!) is to get developers to think about this, not to declare the death of next-gen.

The first poster says I end with something about cars. Well yes, it's called a metaphor! Here's my closing statement:

"It turns out that the average consumer of today does not necessarily want a Ferrari hooked up to his or her entertainment system ... The average consumer is content with the Toyota Corolla of gaming systems, and for that reason, I propose that the war of bigger and badder graphics can safely end, and we can finally focus on pushing gameplay to the fore."

I said the war can end. The cock waving can end. Graphics as the *reason* for buying a game can end. That's not heralding the end of next-gen, it's just saying that it's no longer the deciding factor, ala Mode 7 versus Blast Processing.

I don't post here frequently so I apologize if it takes me a while to respond to any comments.
 

hauton

Member
Jan 6, 2007
1,517
0
0
Pachael said:
Quoted again for truth. There are some battles that can't be overcome, and the Wii this gen is one of them.
See I don't really understand this kind of thinking.

I guess there are real casuals who are obviously excited about the rise of casual gaming.

But it seems like there are some fanboys out there who just want to see Nintendo steamroll everyone just to say with a smug grin that "they were right". Which is fine, I guess.

It's just I honestly feel it'll be a shame if we don't see spectacular games like MGS4 anymore. I'd like to think there's room for both. But for some, it seems increasingly like it's "us or them". Which is sad, because that mindset is really narrow-minded and pathetic.
 

Kleegamefan

K. LEE GAIDEN
Jun 30, 2004
9,418
24
1,690
51
Mohave Valley Arizona
Torquill said:
I think you're overstating his original points.

I think that has more to do with 3 than 4.

Beyond Snake Eater being one of the best games on the PS2, it was game of the year on GAF (poll results)

Among gaffers, you are definitely in the minority if you think Snake Eater sucked


I'm just sayin:D
 

AstroLad

Hail to the KING baby
Jul 23, 2004
37,730
0
0
hauton said:
See I don't really understand this kind of thinking.

I guess there are real casuals who are obviously excited about the rise of casual gaming.

But it seems like there are some fanboys out there who just want to see Nintendo steamroll everyone just to say with a smug grin that "they were right". Which is fine, I guess.

It's just I honestly feel it'll be a shame if we don't see spectacular games like MGS4 anymore. I'd like to think there's room for both. But for some, it seems increasingly like it's "us or them". Which is sad, because that mindset is really narrow-minded and pathetic.
It's a vicious cycle. There's nothing you or anyone else can do about it, unfortunately.
 

ferricide

Member
Jun 8, 2004
1,955
0
0
hauton said:
It's just I honestly feel it'll be a shame if we don't see spectacular games like MGS4 anymore. I'd like to think there's room for both. But for some, it seems increasingly like it's "us or them". Which is sad, because that mindset is really narrow-minded and pathetic.
it's an "us or them" situation inasmuch as companies have limited resources and need a balanced portfolio of titles that will perform for them financially based on the resources that they've got.

but i just said "balanced" and, at least at present, conventional wisdom at publishers suggests that both casual wii games and DS games and hardcore PS360 games are required. so there doesn't seem to be too much to worry about after all.
 

Kilrogg

paid requisite penance
Jan 4, 2007
9,256
0
1,325
Mamesj said:
This is the moment I knew would happen, but hoped wouldn't. Devs/Journalists see the popularity in the Wii and reexamine what a game system needs, then bash the PS3/360 accordingly.
You know, what I find sad is the "see the popularity" part in your sentence, because it's true (in general, not necessarily this particular article). If you're going to defend the Wii, praise Nintendo's strategy and herald their systems as the saviours of gaming or whatever, do so because you fucking believe it, not just because it's popular. What we witness (or will witness) in most cases is journalists selling out solely because the Wii is what's hot, not because they "believe" in it. I'd rather have tens of Pachters who, however wrong they are, can show some stubbornness. Not to say that I like analysts though :p.
 

kevm3

Member
Jun 12, 2004
8,050
392
1,595
Casuals who want to play Wii sports or other casual type games won't really care. But to most others, graphics are very important. Gears wouldn't have sold nearly as well if it looked like a lower echelon 360 title. Although having awesome gameplay, COD4 wouldn't have been nearly as immersive without the awesome graphics. The graphics really helped set the mood for the game, and a lot of that would be ruined if it looked like Socom 2. Also, more power doesn't just mean better visual effects. It means a more immersive world. The physics of Little Big Planet wouldn't be possible on PS2 unless significantly scaled down.
 

Gbeav

Banned
Aug 18, 2007
1,841
0
0
Ah the old last gen was good enough argument. It's a good thing this argument is false because I would probably be on my 10th Intellivision by now.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Jul 31, 2004
7,104
1
0
41
Lake County
exoduster said:
Hello people!
this is brandon sheffield, by the way...

first - I agree with what hauton says, to get that out of the way.

Second, the point of this article was not at all that next-gen is pointless, and I would hope that anyone reading it would see that...if not, well, maybe that's my fault.

The point was rather that we often talk about the day when we will reach the point when graphics don't matter from the perspective of selling a game. My point was that for the average consumer, we may well have reached that point already. Of course next-gen games will keep coming out, this appeals very much to a certain element of the hardcore (personally I'd like to see more high-res 2D games, but, well...I'm just holding out hope for KOF XII).

Except in certain cases, like racing games or maybe exploration games that need sweeping vistas, most of the time the graphics don't actually enhance gameplay. Sometimes they do, but by and large, what makes a good game is the way it plays, as hauton says. So my point is that if we're already there, then we can sort of stop talking about the graphics plateau, because it's basically been reached for most consumers.

Sure, MGS4 sold more than MGS3 - but it had a whole lot more push behind it than MGS3 ever did, since sony had a whole lot invested in that. I mean it was bundled with some systems, after all!

To whoever said it was a dumb editorial - I hope you read the article, not just the excerpts. If you read it and still feel that way, that's perfectly fine, but please make sure you know full well what you're actually discussing.

The point above the point (I am trying to avoid saying meta like a douchebag...but hey, I just did!) is to get developers to think about this, not to declare the death of next-gen.

The first poster says I end with something about cars. Well yes, it's called a metaphor! Here's my closing statement:

"It turns out that the average consumer of today does not necessarily want a Ferrari hooked up to his or her entertainment system ... The average consumer is content with the Toyota Corolla of gaming systems, and for that reason, I propose that the war of bigger and badder graphics can safely end, and we can finally focus on pushing gameplay to the fore."

I said the war can end. The cock waving can end. Graphics as the *reason* for buying a game can end. That's not heralding the end of next-gen, it's just saying that it's no longer the deciding factor, ala Mode 7 versus Blast Processing.

I don't post here frequently so I apologize if it takes me a while to respond to any comments.
Thanks for even taking the time to explain yourself to GAF of all places. I have been saying the exact same thing discussed in this editorial for the past few years ever since I saw Source Engine and Cryengine 2. Yes graphics still can look a lot better but I believe we are at a point where the difference is negligible in regards to gameplay. It's time to concentrate on something else to push console gaming otherwise if we keep going the "bigger, better, badder" direction with graphics then eventually developers will hit a wall where the costs outweigh potential revenue and the entire industry will need their games to either cost $80 a pop or sell 8 Million a piece. Hell I think we are already beginning to see this happen.
 

kevm3

Member
Jun 12, 2004
8,050
392
1,595
Yeah, pretty much. MGS4 wouldn't be nearly as popular if it looked like MGS3. Saying, "Hey, MGS3 sold awesome and it's a PS2 game!" Well, MGS3 was one of the best looking PS2 games at its time.

It all eventually comes down to gameplay, but graphics add a level of immersion that simply wouldn't be there if they had to be scaled down. The Final Fantasy titles wouldn't be nearly as popular if they weren't the graphical juggernauts they are. I have a feeling this guy will change his tune as this current generation progresses, and the graphics between 360/PS3 and Wii become even more jarring. You simply can't have things like fighting the Leviathan in Resistance 2 without the necessary power. People may point to Shadow of the Colossus on PS2 as showing how massive scale can be done on older tech, but what is the biggest complaint about that game? The framerate.
 

[Nintex]

Member
Jun 21, 2005
18,889
5
1,560
31
The Netherlands
www.n1ntendo.nl
I think the biggest problem is that we haven't seen alot of new games this generation. It's mostly sequels to last-gen games with new controls or HD visuals. And somewhat new games are milked to death already(Guitar Hero). I've been blown away by only a few titles and even the self-proclaimed industry innovator is rehashing their old shit. MGS4 was amazing and I love Super Mario Galaxy. But games like Halo 3, Devil May Cry 4, GTAIV and Smash Bros. Brawl are more or less the same games we've played before. I'm sure that Animal Crossing City Folk, Call of Duty 5 and Gears of War 2 won't win any original game design awards either...
 

LunarMaster

Member
Dec 17, 2007
58
0
0
Immersion plays a huge role in gameplay. If you stop to look at a muddy texture or some silly AI reactions , it breaks you away from it. It seems that the Wii controller can do that for many people, but that immersion also seems to fade over time (once the player is accustomed to the control scheme). If you look at a game like Dead Rising on the Wii, the the extra horsepower on the 360 plays a huge role in how the games atmosphere draws you in. I truly don't think that we have hit the plateau where hardware upgrades are no longer necessary.
 

Saint Gregory

Member
Jan 4, 2006
14,146
0
0
FightyF said:
It's not a dumb mag, but that was a dumb editorial.

Not as dumb as that Malstrom stuff though, I have to say.

All I have to say in regard to this article...why didn't we have the same outlook when Sony announced the PS2? The PSX sold amazingly well, why did we need to move on?

The PS2 in turn sold like hotcakes when it hit mass market prices.

If the PS3 and 360 don't sell like crazy when they hit mass market prices, THEN there is an issue. We saw that with the GameCube and to an extent, the Xbox. But all indications are that both the PS3 and 360 are selling steadily well, and that when a price drop hits, many more adopt these consoles.
Um, the PS2 was already wiping the floor with the Xbox and GC
and Dreamcast :,(
before it's first price drop. It was impossible to find anywhere until about a month a half after it's launch holiday season was over and was the market leader from start to finish. That price drop it took to $199 was pretty much akin to kicking sand in MS and Nintendo's faces and had little to do with it selling like hotcakes.

If this gen has thought me anything it's that if people really want something they'll pay whatever the price to get it. The PS3 and 360 will certainly sell better when they cost less but I wish people would stop pointing to their price points as the reason that they're lagging behind the Wii (or vice-versa).
 

Zombie James

Banned
Dec 28, 2005
46,217
3
0
exoduster said:
Hello people!
this is brandon sheffield, by the way...

first - I agree with what hauton says, to get that out of the way.

Second, the point of this article was not at all that next-gen is pointless, and I would hope that anyone reading it would see that...if not, well, maybe that's my fault.

The point was rather that we often talk about the day when we will reach the point when graphics don't matter from the perspective of selling a game. My point was that for the average consumer, we may well have reached that point already. Of course next-gen games will keep coming out, this appeals very much to a certain element of the hardcore (personally I'd like to see more high-res 2D games, but, well...I'm just holding out hope for KOF XII).

Except in certain cases, like racing games or maybe exploration games that need sweeping vistas, most of the time the graphics don't actually enhance gameplay. Sometimes they do, but by and large, what makes a good game is the way it plays, as hauton says. So my point is that if we're already there, then we can sort of stop talking about the graphics plateau, because it's basically been reached for most consumers.

Sure, MGS4 sold more than MGS3 - but it had a whole lot more push behind it than MGS3 ever did, since sony had a whole lot invested in that. I mean it was bundled with some systems, after all!

To whoever said it was a dumb editorial - I hope you read the article, not just the excerpts. If you read it and still feel that way, that's perfectly fine, but please make sure you know full well what you're actually discussing.

The point above the point (I am trying to avoid saying meta like a douchebag...but hey, I just did!) is to get developers to think about this, not to declare the death of next-gen.

The first poster says I end with something about cars. Well yes, it's called a metaphor! Here's my closing statement:

"It turns out that the average consumer of today does not necessarily want a Ferrari hooked up to his or her entertainment system ... The average consumer is content with the Toyota Corolla of gaming systems, and for that reason, I propose that the war of bigger and badder graphics can safely end, and we can finally focus on pushing gameplay to the fore."

I said the war can end. The cock waving can end. Graphics as the *reason* for buying a game can end. That's not heralding the end of next-gen, it's just saying that it's no longer the deciding factor, ala Mode 7 versus Blast Processing.

I don't post here frequently so I apologize if it takes me a while to respond to any comments.
Ahh, refreshing! Thanks for the added insight!

I still don't agree, though :p
 

Yagharek

Member
Mar 3, 2007
22,786
0
0
If you are going to invoke the "average consumer" in a debate, you need to take with it the added baggage about "average consumers". They don't often go to see the best films or read the best books or play the best games (for best read 'ones with artistic merit as opposed to lowest common denominator slop').

So just because the "average consumer" is happy with one thing, does not mean the afficionados need to care.
 

Kleegamefan

K. LEE GAIDEN
Jun 30, 2004
9,418
24
1,690
51
Mohave Valley Arizona
I must also say I am wondering what the point of the editorial myself...


I mean are we REALLY "giving up" great gameplay on PS360 just because they do state of the art graphics/physics/audio?

It may be just me, but I am playing a lot of fun, well playing games on the PS360(lolz at the thought of playing Portal on the PS2....I mean, for realz!!) that look and sound great...the suggestion that we are "sacrificing gameplay" for the sake of graphics is absurd in my mind!!

But hell, why have it all, when you can have something less, right?


Furthermore, who is to say the only worthwhile endevor is to play a title that is STRICTLY gameplay focused, graphics/physics/audio be dammed??


Speaking for myself, sometimes I am in the mood for a high concept-high budget title that pushes the graphics/physics/audio envelope (MGS4 is the posterboy for this) because when done right, beyond being a great cinematic experience, offers a sense of atmosphere
that can't be replicated on a last gen system......

And since when have we been denied the choice anyway?

One of the great things about PS360 is the option to play great/fun stuff that dont push the graphics envelope via PSN and Xbox Live Arcade......and so again, I say, show me where exactly how PS360 is denying me innovative, fun to play, smaller scaled games that push the gameplay envelope and can be done on last gen hardware???

If anything, PSN and Xbox Live Arcade are the most fertile breeding grounds for those types of games!!!


So in the end, I believe we are well able to make our own distinctions on what constitutes a worthwhile gameplay experience....one that changes on mood or preference...


One does not invalidate the other, but you knew that already:D
 

wazoo

Member
Jun 10, 2004
5,579
0
0
THe point of the article is that the number of people in the first group (The Wii sports group) is much bigger than the number of people in the second group (The Gears group), but we already know it, so there no revelation here.

kevm3 said:
Casuals who want to play Wii sports or other casual type games won't really care. But to most others, graphics are very important. Gears wouldn't have sold nearly as well if it looked like a lower echelon 360 title. Although having awesome gameplay, COD4 wouldn't have been nearly as immersive without the awesome graphics. The graphics really helped set the mood for the game, and a lot of that would be ruined if it looked like Socom 2. Also, more power doesn't just mean better visual effects. It means a more immersive world. The physics of Little Big Planet wouldn't be possible on PS2 unless significantly scaled down.
 

Shaheed79

dabbled in the jelly
Jul 31, 2004
7,104
1
0
41
Lake County
RandomVince said:
If you are going to invoke the "average consumer" in a debate, you need to take with it the added baggage about "average consumers". They don't often go to see the best films or read the best books or play the best games (for best read 'ones with artistic merit as opposed to lowest common denominator slop').

So just because the "average consumer" is happy with one thing, does not mean the afficionados need to care.
He writes for a Game Developers magazine not aficionados monthly. He didn't ask whoever made this topic to post inserts to his article here.
 

wazoo

Member
Jun 10, 2004
5,579
0
0
RandomVince said:
If you are going to invoke the "average consumer" in a debate, you need to take with it the added baggage about "average consumers". They don't often go to see the best films or read the best books or play the best games (for best read 'ones with artistic merit as opposed to lowest common denominator slop').

So just because the "average consumer" is happy with one thing, does not mean the afficionados need to care.
Now, you start to be elitist, because you equal "next gen graphics/etc/" with "best games".

Ans, as for your analogy to cinema, the movies with the best FX are usually the worst movies in terms of critical reviews (but your opinion may differ, as every opinon).