MrNyarlathotep
Banned
hauton 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?
-
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)
- Thread starter Zombie James
- Start date
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
hauton 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 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.MrNyarlathotep said:
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*
MisterHero
Super Member
That's true, but so far meeting the tech demands of games like MGS4 cost Sony the lead market position.hauton said:
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
Exactly. I want the latest, sharpest and highest of hi-res graphics that I can get. Crazy Ken promised 4D and I believe!!duketogo88 said:
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?charlequin 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.
ItAintEasyBeinCheesy
it's 4th of July in my asshole
Starchasing said:
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.
MrNyarlathotep
Banned
hauton said:
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:
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:
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
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.
I said wow.
Kübler-Ross. nice.MrNyarlathotep said:
Starchasing
Member
K.Jack said:
I dunno where i am but i want to play Diablo 3
excellent art direction + hi res graphics + awesome sound
Starchasing
Member
MrNyarlathotep said:
this should be quoted on every single thread like this
you win this thread sir
Cromulent_Word
Member
so, because its game developer magazine they aren't allowed to have opinion pieces.Haunted One said:
btw, brandon sheffield is easily one of the best game journos out there.
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.
Well yeah, and that was Sony's gamble.MisterHero said:
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.
Cromulent_Word
Member
yah i quoted the wrong person bolding GAME DEVELOPER MAGAZINE.Haunted One said:
my bad - apologies.
XiaNaphryz
LATIN, MATRIPEDICABUS, DO YOU SPEAK IT
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?_leech_ said:
That said, I really enjoyed the FFCC:MLAAK post-mortem that was in the last issue.
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.
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.
cartoon_soldier
Member
Is it an editorial or an Op-ed piece?
See I don't really understand this kind of thinking.Pachael said:
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
Torquill said:
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
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.hauton said:
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.
Mamesj said:
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
.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.
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.exoduster said:
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.
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.
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
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
FightyF said:
Um, the PS2 was already wiping the floor with the Xbox and GC
and Dreamcast :,(
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
exoduster said:
Ahh, refreshing! Thanks for the added insight!
I still don't agree, though
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.
So just because the "average consumer" is happy with one thing, does not mean the afficionados need to care.
Kleegamefan
K. LEE GAIDEN
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
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