Yes! I agree. Graphics will always be important (games are also visual medium after all) but they need to stop being the most important thing devs think about when creating and selling! their game.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.
He never implied we were ""giving up"" great gameplay for PS360 level graphics. He was simply asking the question are they necessary and unfortunately for us to the majority of gamers or at least to the majority of people buying games and consoles this generation the answer is no they are not. I personally feel that industry can rest at Crysis level graphics and concentrate on other things.Kleegamefan said: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!!
K.Jack said:If all three consoles had debuted at the $250 price point, would we be having this discussion
wazoo said: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).
cartoon_soldier said:Is it an editorial or an Op-ed piece?
K.Jack said:A couple tired questions:
If all three consoles had debuted at the $250 price point, would we be having this discussion?
Would the Wii still be running away from the pack?
Shaheed79 said:He never implied we were ""giving up"" great gameplay for PS360 level graphics. He was simply asking the question are they necessary and unfortunately for us to the majority of gamers or at least to the majority of people buying games and consoles this generation the answer is no they are not. I personally feel that industry can rest at Crysis level graphics and concentrate on other things.
_leech_ said: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.
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.
It was a case of unfortunate timing. High definition came in, and for the consoles not to support this yet be expected to last 5 years was unreasonable (unless they have another selling point, see Wii).Segata Sanshiro said:Meh, I feel this gen we had one company undershoot the needs of the consumer vis-a-vis tech, and the other two ridiculously overshoot them. It's too quick of a growth for the industry, and not wholly necessary, and a whole lot of developers/publishers are bleeding from the ass for this folly.
MGS4 is a strange example to use, though. This is one game I feel benefited substantially from being marketed as a next-gen title. Without that trick in its marketing arsenal, I'd have bet solid dollar on it performing worse than MGS3.
Starchasing said:so whats sony doing that is so new?
stalker said:These are some quotes that even those not very interested in HD graphics (as myself) can disagree with.
I don't get the comparisons with youtube. The success fo youtube is certainly not based on people not caring about picture quality. It is based on people caring about on-demand availability and user created content.
exoduster said: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).
Well, yeah, how else could you get a tree with high def textures to pop-up after you hit, but with the power of the PS3? Just because it takes forever to load off of BluRay doesn't mean it's not a next gen storage format.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?
I think his point is that this push for a 'ferrari' got us into this debacle. We know now and many knew before, that the current push for HD graphics would vastly increase the cost of this generation. Your wish is unattainable, when you have another guy willing to up the ante. MS and Sony played that game and both overshot the market. Hell, I agree with Segata that Nintendo deliberately undershot the market, probably to disrupt them more. I agree that we need to give up this tech race, but it'll never be. As long as there are 3 competitors, they'll fight to get a leg up on the next. One answer we do have from this gen is that they'll calm down and aim for more reasonable prices.KTallguy said:Anyway, my rebuttal is that people may be satisfied with a Toyota Corolla, but if you can give them a Ferrari that's as easy to drive as a Corolla, and lower the price enough through technology, people will make the change. It's the same thing with power windows, A/C or cruise control becoming nearly standard in all cars. Someday, GPS will be standard too.
Those already came out.Farnack said:Oh man, oh man. I can't wait for the VHS release of the Lord of the Rings Trilogy! :lol
KTallguy said:You can have some of the above using older technology, and depending on the style of your game, it's absolutely possible to draw and immerse players into worlds. However with limited technology, a large degree of abstraction is necessary. Nothing wrong with that, but there is a lot more you can do with better technology, and that doesn't just mean graphics.
Stay in the SD era then.Segata Sanshiro said:Those already came out.
But hey, good job simplifying the argument. I'd love to live in your black-and-white world.
Starchasing said:it can be argued that less detail can lead to bigger inmersion
Oh wait, it'll be a small world with limited games and movies. Have fun.Farnack said:Stay in the SD era then.
I'll enjoy the true HD fidelity of awesome.
wazoo said: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).
Shaheed79 said: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.
KTallguy said:It can be, but does that mean that we should only seek games with no detail?
We can chase after both at once, you know?
Variety is excellent. There is room for different ideas in the market.
As for technology in movies, it's an ever improving curve. You wouldnt compare the tech in Citizen Kane (mentioned previously) with that in The Matrix, and judge them based off that. But if you look at great movies of recent times, Pan's Labyrinth for example, the technology has been a massive benefit to it.
Keep in mind that technology doesnt just refer to cgi though. It includes the filming equipment, editing equipment, audio equipment etc.
Starchasing said:You said it yourself, tech is not a variable in how good a movie is. It is just the talent behind it using the tech available. Same can be argued with games.
Mr. Brandon Sheffield is an idiot_leech_ said:From the recent issue of said magazine, the editorial by a Mr. Brandon Sheffield:
He ends the article by making a car comparison.
So, in short:
- Last-gen graphics are all we'll ever need.
- Developers should port-down their games because no one will care or notice.
- GTA IV on a PS2 would have been just as great.
- Blu-ray sucks because YouTube is popular.
- Casuals don't care about graphics, so neither should anyone else.
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.
:|
You're still simplifying the argument to suit your agenda. Have fun, I'm not wasting my time arguing with someone with a last-gen brain.Farnack said:Stay in the SD era then.
I'll enjoy the true HD fidelity of awesome.
KTallguy said:Limitations can bring innovation, but the opposite is also true. That's why Square abandoned the Nintendo 64's cartridges for a CD based format.
Deku said:I find this rather ironic consider Square has all but abandoned next-gen at this point.
KTallguy said:Absolutely.
And if the talent has more tech, and is focused on using it in a non-superficial way, then amazing things can happen, I'd think.
Limitations can bring innovation, but the opposite is also true. That's why Square abandoned the Nintendo 64's cartridges for a CD based format.
you mean recycling the same 3 Final Fantasy XIII games we've known about since the beginning of time in every convention plus 2 unknown b-level IPs, one of which was moneyhatted by Microsoft?!KTallguy said:5 Next Gen RPGs aren't enough?
Art direction is much more important for a cinematic experience, IMO. I know it's a tired example, but I'd like to point out Wind Waker as evidence for this.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?
Starchasing said:Dont take things to the extreme... no one is talking about no visual details... like books.
What im saying is that inmersion has nothing to do with resolution or polygon count
You said it yourself, tech is not a variable in how good a movie is. It is just the talent behind it using the tech available. Same can be argued with games.
Starchasing said:But in the end what moves people is the talent not the tech. Some goes for inmersion. Some day whenever i find the mood ill open a thread on the topic of why i think tech is not a variable in inmersion, since i wrote a lot of papers about that in college when i majored in film.
Deku said:you mean recycling the same 3 Final Fantasy XIII games we've known about since the beginning of time in every convention plus 2 unknown b-level IPs, one of which was moneyhatted by Microsoft?!
MGS4 could have released on the PS2 (or even the Wii, which would outperform the PS2) if Kojima's team had employed a clever artstyle. Mood can be conveyed effectively on any of these platforms, so the cinematic experience could be retained. The only issues would be storage (though less without HD textures and lighting, and it could be handled with multiple discs) and the physics engine (but clever programming could create an exceptional engine tailored for the target platform).
And you're two gens behind. :lolSegata Sanshiro said:You're still simplifying the argument to suit your agenda. Have fun, I'm not wasting my time arguing with someone with a last-gen brain.
Silly.Mikey said:Im pretty sure that 99% of the best selling games of the past few years also had amazing graphics. There goes his theory.
So, like Malstrom's hardcore, you see these so-called 'casual' gamers as "retard gamers".Farnack said:And you're two gens behind. :lol
If the Wii was good enough, why are all the third parties doing pretty badly on it?
The average consumer (nongamers) don't mind the graphics of the Wii because they don't know jack. They are non-thinking consumers. Those consumers goto best buy asking if the latest HDTV has antennas.
Visual and audio fidelity is a good thing for games and movies.
MGS4 on the PS2 would have done worst than MGS3. The PS2 was at peak performance and a lot of Kojima's ideas could not be put into reality with the PS2.