Support NeoGAF

[Eideka]

I love Borderlands too man. Love 2 especially. Btw my comment was on Borderlands 1 and not 2. It has a distinct artstyle for sure and it def has its own identity.

I'm glad we can agree on this.

But Borderlands 1 reused tons of assets again and again. Texture work was very poor and massive lod issues.

Good thing I played it on PC then. Regarding assets Borderlands is not the only one in that situation, not to mention that it does it quite well. As a result I don't think the game should be singled out. I won't even draw the comparison with a corridor shooter like Uncharted.

 

[Kazuma Kiryu]

And where do games like Hawken or Dark Souls/Demon's Souls fit in your little dichotomy there?

Let's not pretend like midtier games are completely extinct because they simply aren't.

it's just pramath doing the same old talk "wiiU is awesome, graphics suck, everything is doomed". you mention wiiU on a thread, pramath and coldblooder are on the case.

middle tier will keep on existing, unless they still want to sell their games at $60 to compete with "AAA" games. if you insist on competing with a certain segment of the market in retail, you just end up spending more money to get those games on a real shelf and getting visibility.
companies will have to adjust to the current market, which is bigger than ever before. steam, xbla, psn, eshop, app store, google play and that's just digital. there is still a small space for middle tier games (at a fair price) in retail. manage budgets, promote games and price them accordingly.
kickstarter also became a very interesting proposition to both fans and developers to create and get the games they want after the success of doublefine. i guess the new carmageddon, doublefine adventure, broken sword and many others funded are also indie games.

 

[Jack_AG]

As applied to console gaming it does.

I think the touchpad and its unique abilities and ability to play away from the television is far more of an innovation to console gaming than incremental graphics upgrades.

So, by your logic, putting a steering wheel on a bike instead of handlebars is "innovation" since a bike's primary hardware for navigation is handlebars.

Surely you jest.

Also, console gaming on a handheld device not tethered to a TV is nothing new - that ground (while EXTREMELY limited by my next example) has been done via PS3/PSP.

Again, it's not innovation just because its neatly packaged - that is simply an evolution of the medium.

 

[Dion Blaster]

So, by your logic, putting a steering wheel on a bike instead of handlebars is "innovation" since a bike's primary hardware for navigation is handlebars.

This is a terrible analogy. Videogames are an interactive form of entertainment, I think coming up with new ways to interact and entertain is a great innovation.

I don't see how making a bike harder to control relates to the gamepad.

 

[pramath]

So, by your logic, putting a steering wheel on a bike instead of handlebars is "innovation" since a bike's primary hardware for navigation is handlebars.

Surely you jest.

Also, console gaming on a handheld device not tethered to a TV is nothing new - that ground (while EXTREMELY limited by my next example) has been done via PS3/PSP.

Again, it's not innovation just because its neatly packaged - that is simply an evolution of the medium.

 

[meta4]

I'm glad we can agree on this.


Good thing I played it on PC then. Regarding assets Borderlands is not the only one in that situation, not to mention that it does it quite well. As a result I don't think the game should be singled out. I won't even draw the comparison with a corridor shooter like Uncharted.

I was talking about consoles only. I am not singling it alone. There are plenty guilty of this on consoles. All I am saying is developing Borderlands 1 on either 360 or PS3 considering all this should not be costing much more than UC. If it is than there is some serious problem with the dev and not advancement in technology.

 

[Stewox]

One thing is certain, it won't be a big leap over WiiU, atleast X720 as has growing PS4 HD4K rumors

 

[Sianos]

ctrl-f "PC"

guess i'm

Exclusives matter much more to me than power, since I can buy any multiplatform during Steam sales with improved graphics and modability at a fraction of the price. However, powerful consoles are great, since they raise the baseline for these multiplatform games not fully utilizing PC's full power, so I don't mind.

I doubt I'd buy one unless it had a large library of unique exclusives I wouldn't mind paying full price for. On the fence with the Wii U, since it'll probably be cheaper and have more unique titles. I'll most likely just run PC - 3DS for the generation.

 

[Nekki]

Many children will be named after the consoles.

 

[squidyj]

it's just pramath doing the same old talk "wiiU is awesome, graphics suck, everything is doomed". you mention wiiU on a thread, pramath and coldblooder are on the case.

middle tier will keep on existing, unless they still want to sell their games at $60 to compete with "AAA" games. if you insist on competing with a certain segment of the market in retail, you just end up spending more money to get those games on a real shelf and getting visibility.
companies will have to adjust to the current market, which is bigger than ever before. steam, xbla, psn, eshop, app store, google play and that's just digital. there is still a small space for middle tier games (at a fair price) in retail. manage budgets, promote games and price them accordingly.
kickstarter also became a very interesting proposition to both fans and developers to create and get the games they want after the success of doublefine. i guess the new carmageddon, doublefine adventure, broken sword and many others funded are also indie games.

Really this forum would be a better place if everyone, myself included, just stopped responding to Pramath.

 

[test_account]

Dont confuse innovation with evolution. Nothing in the WiiU is new technology and pushes innovation. An evolution of the current space? Yes. New technology and advancements? Nope.

I don't consider a marriage of input/output devices "innovation". It just means that someone put both peanut butter and jelly on the same sandwich.

That's not saying they aren't doing something unique, though. I do believe they are best served by their approach to add an additional layer of pre-existing input technology to a controller. I like Nintendo for their interesting design choices but not going to call them innovative for walking a path others have laid down before them.

Innovation doesnt have to be something brand new technology wise. Facebook is actually concidered as one of the most innovative companies out there, yet the idea of a social network was done a long time before Facebook excisted.

The idea of using a TV and an 2nd screen as interaction isnt something brand new as you say, but i dont think that it has been done in the extend that the WiiU can offer. It should be possible to define this as innovation.

 

[pramath]

Really this forum would be a better place if everyone, myself included, just stopped responding to Pramath.

I take that as a compliment.

I'm simply a barer of the truth that many users do not want to hear

 

[CaptNfantasy]

I take that as a compliment.

I'm simply a barer of the truth that many users do not want to hear

How dare you tell me the earth is round. There must be something wrong with you.

 

[squidyj]

How dare you tell me the earth is round. There must be something wrong with you.

yeah, that's what's going on, lol.

 

[pramath]

How dare you tell me the earth is round. There must be something wrong with you.

Bingo

 

[CaptNfantasy]

yeah, that's what's going on, lol.

No, whats going on is there are a ton of people who dont understand habituation and how it works. A good example of habituation is when you wake up in the morning and smell coffee brewing. At first its like a punch in the face, but after awhile you barely notice it. Thats because nature designed pleasure to be fleeting.

When a new console comes out, everyone shits their pants at how great it looks graphically, and the visuals are some kind of revolution, but then after awhile, its the same old crap over and over and people are complaining for new better graphics.

But wait a minute... werent those games so great just a bit ago? Werent they so amazing and exciting like a punch in the face? What happened? People got habituated to them and the thrill wore off and now its standard.

So some people, like me, look deeper at games and entertainment. I dont care how something looks if it plays like the same old game ive always played, but with a shiny new coat of paint that lasts me until the next coat of paint. Companies like Nintendo try to avoid habituation as much as they can within reason by introducing new elements that change how playing the game feels. They attempt to startle you with the gameplay itself, the concepts, the way the game "feels". Not just how it looks.

So no i dont think its crazy to look out into the future and see the pattern of crying until shiny new toy then crying until shiny next toy then crying until the next next shiny toy.

I want a toy that is fun to play with at its core of cores, that way it never truly gets old. Screw shiny new paint jobs thats not enough for me.

 

[test_account]

No, whats going on is there are a ton of people who dont understand habituation and how it works. A good example of habituation is when you wake up in the morning and smell coffee brewing. At first its like a punch in the face, but after awhile you barely notice it. Thats because nature designed pleasure to be fleeting.

When a new console comes out, everyone shits their pants at how great it looks graphically, and the visuals are some kind of revolution, but then after awhile, its the same old crap over and over and people are complaining for new better graphics.

But wait a minute... werent those games so great just a bit ago? Werent they so amazing and exciting like a punch in the face? What happened? People got habituated to them and the thrill wore off and now its standard.

So some people, like me, look deeper at games and entertainment. I dont care how something looks if it plays like the same old game ive always played, but with a shiny new coat of paint that lasts me until the next coat of paint. Companies like Nintendo try to avoid habituation as much as they can within reason by introducing new elements that change how playing the game feels. They attempt to startle you with the gameplay itself, the concepts, the way the game "feels". Not just how it looks.

So no i dont think its crazy to look out into the future and see the pattern of crying until shiny new toy then crying until shiny next toy then crying until the next next shiny toy.

I want a toy that is fun to play with at its core of cores, that way it never truly gets old. Screw shiny new paint jobs thats not enough for me.

You get used to the controls as well, so this isnt really much different compared to graphics in my opinion.

 

[jaypah]

I don't even know what thread this is anymore.

You get used to the controls as well, so this isnt really much different compared to graphics in my opinion.

True. Once the novelty wears off all that's left is a good/bad game. Same with graphics to me.

 

[pramath]

No, whats going on is there are a ton of people who dont understand habituation and how it works. A good example of habituation is when you wake up in the morning and smell coffee brewing. At first its like a punch in the face, but after awhile you barely notice it. Thats because nature designed pleasure to be fleeting.

When a new console comes out, everyone shits their pants at how great it looks graphically, and the visuals are some kind of revolution, but then after awhile, its the same old crap over and over and people are complaining for new better graphics.

But wait a minute... werent those games so great just a bit ago? Werent they so amazing and exciting like a punch in the face? What happened? People got habituated to them and the thrill wore off and now its standard.

So some people, like me, look deeper at games and entertainment. I dont care how something looks if it plays like the same old game ive always played, but with a shiny new coat of paint that lasts me until the next coat of paint. Companies like Nintendo try to avoid habituation as much as they can within reason by introducing new elements that change how playing the game feels. They attempt to startle you with the gameplay itself, the concepts, the way the game "feels". Not just how it looks.

So no i dont think its crazy to look out into the future and see the pattern of crying until shiny new toy then crying until shiny next toy then crying until the next next shiny toy.

I want a toy that is fun to play with at its core of cores, that way it never truly gets old. Screw shiny new paint jobs thats not enough for me.

Real post of the thread.

 

[Majanew]

You get used to the controls as well, so this isnt really much different compared to graphics in my opinion.

CaptNfantasy's argument killed with one sentence.

 

[meta4]

No, whats going on is there are a ton of people who dont understand habituation and how it works. A good example of habituation is when you wake up in the morning and smell coffee brewing. At first its like a punch in the face, but after awhile you barely notice it. Thats because nature designed pleasure to be fleeting.

When a new console comes out, everyone shits their pants at how great it looks graphically, and the visuals are some kind of revolution, but then after awhile, its the same old crap over and over and people are complaining for new better graphics.

But wait a minute... werent those games so great just a bit ago? Werent they so amazing and exciting like a punch in the face? What happened? People got habituated to them and the thrill wore off and now its standard.

So some people, like me, look deeper at games and entertainment. I dont care how something looks if it plays like the same old game ive always played, but with a shiny new coat of paint that lasts me until the next coat of paint. Companies like Nintendo try to avoid habituation as much as they can within reason by introducing new elements that change how playing the game feels. They attempt to startle you with the gameplay itself, the concepts, the way the game "feels". Not just how it looks.

So no i dont think its crazy to look out into the future and see the pattern of crying until shiny new toy then crying until shiny next toy then crying until the next next shiny toy.

I want a toy that is fun to play with at its core of cores, that way it never truly gets old. Screw shiny new paint jobs thats not enough for me.

So much wrong in this post its not even funny.

 

[Represent.]

Post was good until Wii U was brought up. The tablet controller is a huge gimmick and will get old just as fast (probably faster) than shiny new graphics.

 

[jaypah]

Real post of the thread.

SHOCKING

 

[Boss Man]

When this happens the usual suspects will just blow it off and continue to talk about how technological advancement is somehow killing the industry and that for some reason you can't fit gameplay into a game with all those graphics.

Also, hardware does not make games more expensive, software development does. Ironically, better hardware means it's actually easier to develop software. The thing that happens is developers choose to continue growing and pushing the limits of this new hardware, and that is what becomes expensive. Nintendo stopped doing this, and I guess some people are just defending it so hard that they now want to argue that everyone else do the same.

I was worried after the success of the Wii that this is exactly what would happen, but thankfully it seems like innovation (in software development, not in console design) has proven to have longer legs. Nintendo has very cleverly carved out a very safe niche for itself, but I will not agree with people who propose that the entire industry should recoil into a corner and stop chasing the frontier. Nintendo has its market, and you shouldn't have to spend so much time defending what that means actually to you as a 'gamer' in the long run. I'm looking forward to seeing Zelda in HD, but I'm not going to actively support the fact that it's only just now happening. If that's the way it has to be for Nintendo, then so be it - I'm just not going to try to spin it into something that's praiseworthy.

 

[EatinOlives]

No, whats going on is there are a ton of people who dont understand habituation and how it works. A good example of habituation is when you wake up in the morning and smell coffee brewing. At first its like a punch in the face, but after awhile you barely notice it. Thats because nature designed pleasure to be fleeting.

When a new console comes out, everyone shits their pants at how great it looks graphically, and the visuals are some kind of revolution, but then after awhile, its the same old crap over and over and people are complaining for new better graphics.

What you're complaining about isn't really habituation, it's simply any consumer's natural desire for better things. If you have an amazing new film everyone raves over, eventually it's going to get copied to hell and back and will bore people eventually as they wait for something new and groundbreaking.

It absolutely has nothing to do with graphics. It's a natural progression that happens with every single entertainment medium.

But wait a minute... werent those games so great just a bit ago? Werent they so amazing and exciting like a punch in the face? What happened? People got habituated to them and the thrill wore off and now its standard.

Churn out something that looks and plays exactly like, say, Super Mario 64 in 2012 and people aren't going to be impressed. Again, you're wrongly attributing this behavior with habituation when it actually isn't. It's people simply raising their standards, it's got nothing to do with graphics.

And the rest of the post is the typical "industry bad, Nintendo gud, I'm a REAL gamer" thing we've been hearing over and over.

 

[CaptNfantasy]

You get used to the controls as well, so this isnt really much different compared to graphics in my opinion.

Not necessarily, because im not talking about controls in full. Lets show you why you are completely wrong:

1. Great games, be they Nintendo made or otherwise, strive for a completely classic experience. They use contour and contrast, the elements provide irony of themes. The greatest best example of this would be Super Mario Bros on NES. In level 1 already, the genius of variety and contrast comes into play when Mario is either above ground in a bright happy colorful world, or underground in a dark and spooky place. You see these types of things in ALL great games and great art. Contrast avoids habituation better than not. Great games dont get old as fast because they play on deeper human emotional response, not just controls.

2. On the subject of controls, yes, anything on earth can become habituated to a degree, but lets take a look at what something like wiimote controls do for the player... they provide a much more intuitive method for input. For how many thousands of years have humans swung a tool such as a sword or a bat or a stick using our hands like what is done with a wiimote? Vs moving your thumb on a control stick... one is more natural to true movement. Pointer controls are the same way. While the wiimote, like anything, can become second nature in time, at its core, the experience is more true to natural movements and more simple 1 to 1 connection between player and game. I STILL love wiimote controls. You guys say you hate it and bored already but i know so many people that love it. RE4 on wii rules man. And it does for a reason. Its the control.

And btw, nobody on this thread nor any other thread will "kill" my arguments in a sentence. Ever.

 

[Sentenza]

When this happens the usual suspects will just blow it off and continue to talk about how technological advancement is somehow killing the industry and that for some reason you can't fit gameplay into a game with all those graphics.

Also, hardware does not make games more expensive, software development does. Ironically, better hardware means it's actually easier to develop software. The thing that happens is developers choose to continue growing and pushing the limits of this new hardware, and that is what becomes expensive. Nintendo stopped doing this, and I guess some people are just defending it so hard that they now want to argue that everyone else do the same.

I was worried after the success of the Wii that this is exactly what would happen, but thankfully it seems like innovation (in software development, not in console design) has proven to have longer legs. Nintendo has very cleverly carved out a very safe niche for itself, but I will not agree with people who propose that the entire industry should recoil into a corner and stop chasing the frontier. Nintendo has its market, and you shouldn't have to spend so much time defending what that means actually to you as a 'gamer' in the long run.

Oh, I agree with your post entirely.
I'd just like to point, not because you are claiming otherwise but because it could lead to some general misunderstanding, that inflating the budget and growing the development team exponentially in numbers aren't necessarily the best ways to push boundaries.

You *can* aim higher, innovate and push the boundaries without going for a "300 employees" studio and for a 50 millions budget.

P.S. I also agree with EatinOlives' post.

 

[Drago]

pramath
Banned
Today, 03:18 PM, Post #469

well well well

 

[OldJadedGamer]

Bingo

Normally I don't care about these things but this ban was way overdue. Guy was ruining all kinds of threads and making it hard to read or post to a lot of them.

 

[Canis lupus]

pramath
Banned
Today, 03:18 PM, Post #469

well well well

RIP pramath, wich post did it?

 

[nhlducks35]

pramath
Banned
Today, 03:18 PM, Post #469

well well well

Why'd he get banned?

Edit: Nvm, seems like an annoying prick

 

[CaptNfantasy]

What you're complaining about isn't really habituation, it's simply any consumer's natural desire for better things. If you have an amazing new film everyone raves over, eventually it's going to get copied to hell and back and will bore people eventually as they wait for something new and groundbreaking.

It absolutely has nothing to do with graphics. It's a natural progression that happens with every single entertainment medium.



Churn out something that looks and plays exactly like, say, Super Mario 64 in 2012 and people aren't going to be impressed. Again, you're wrongly attributing this behavior with habituation when it actually isn't. It's people simply raising their standards, it's got nothing to do with graphics.

And the rest of the post is the typical "industry bad, Nintendo gud, I'm a REAL gamer" thing we've been hearing over and over.

Define "better". Thats a thread of its own thatll never get solved.

What you are talking about is consumer perception of what is "better or worse". Yeah, put out a Mario 64 look alike and some people are going to be like wtf because the standard has been set that things have to "advance" a certain way. This is what is called conditioning. Its not going to be changed any time soon.

But

Think of it this way... people still play and love Mario 64. Is the experience worse? Not really, unless you are looking for cutting edge graphics. The gameplay holds up really well. Fantastically well. So this is grey area for your argument. Its an old game that still plays awesomely.

People put out SNES looking games all the time and people love them. I dont see where your argument holds true in all scenarios.

Maybe we both should be placed in charge of creating a game and you do it your way and render every leaf with state of the art tech and ill do it my way where i pay attention to contrast and gameplay and we will see what the two results are in the end.

 

[8byte]

They won't be, if Sony / MS know whats good for them.

 

[Neo C.]

Better hardware is always good. In fact having strong hardware or HD hardware is not the reason why many video game companies are struggling. The main reason why many video game companies are struggling is as a result of the 'AAA-fication' of the industry. Not every single game has to be a big Hollywood production. Things have gotten so bad that the average cost of development is over $20 million. Things have spiralled out of control, I mean we are looking at games like Dead Space 3 having to sell 5 million copies in order to survive. Ghost Recon: Future Soldier cost Ubisoft 50million euros.

Unless something is done about the 'AAA-fication' of the industry a crash (at least in the console arena) is inevitable.

The thing we need is called a barrier. For example, a hard development costs cap. A limit of how much a company can spend on a single game. And extra taxes for those who goes overboard.

Obviously the industry would never agree to such a rule. That's why things are still the same: The main barrier is the power of a console. It's the reason why I expect development costs to jump again once the PS4/720 are on the market.

 

[Horse Armour]

pramath
Banned
(Today, 08:26 PM)
Quote

Thanks mods. Maybe now the gaming side will return to being readable.

 

[Sentenza]

pramath
Banned
(Today, 08:26 PM)
Quote

Thanks mods. Maybe now the gaming side will return to being readable.

While I can't say I will miss him, he wasn't banned for this thread.
Most likely for this other post (and for a long track record of unbearable fanboyism all around, I would guess).

 

[EatinOlives]

Define "better". Thats a thread of its own thatll never get solved.

What you are talking about is consumer perception of what is "better or worse". Yeah, put out a Mario 64 look alike and some people are going to be like wtf because the standard has been set that things have to "advance" a certain way. This is what is called conditioning. Its not going to be changed any time soon.

But

Think of it this way... people still play and love Mario 64. Is the experience worse? Not really, unless you are looking for cutting edge graphics. The gameplay holds up really well. Fantastically well. So this is grey area for your argument. Its an old game that still plays awesomely.

People put out SNES looking games all the time and people love them. I dont see where your argument holds true in all scenarios.

Maybe we both should be placed in charge of creating a game and you do it your way and render every leaf with state of the art tech and ill do it my way where i pay attention to contrast and gameplay and we will see what the two results are in the end.

I enjoy a replay of Mario 64 every now and again, but a lot of people actually argue that it has not aged well at all. Many people who went back and played it because it was considered a classic found things like camera being horrible and controls way too loose and slippery. Not to mention the novelty of seeing a Mario game in 3D and certain technical aspects like a large draw distance are not at all appreciated at this day and age.

As for the SNES argument, it's simply a matter of expectation. I don't expect an an experience on the level of the Witcher 2 from an SNES. I don't expect huge, sprawling 3D environments teeming with detail, hours of dialogue with several branching gameplay paths, decision making resulting in wildly different outcomes from moral gray areas, etc., but that doesn't mean I don't enjoy SNES games, because SNES games played well to the strengths of their system. But groundbreaking titles like F-Zero (first ample use of Mode 7 and impressive speed) aren't impressive in the same way that they were years ago, again because of the standards people have raised since then. F-Zero is still very fun to play, but as a groundbreaking title it's not relevant any longer.

As for the last paragraph, it made me laugh, honestly. I don't know what gave you the idea that I'd worry about rendering leaves without paying attention to gameplay. Not everyone lives in a world of binary.

 

[Horse Armour]

While I can't say I will miss him, he wasn't banned for this thread.
Most likely for this other post (and for a long track record of unbearable fanboyism all around, I would guess).

Oh, I wasn't suggesting that he was banned for this thread, I agree that it was clear that he was going to be banned from his recent posting getting more unbearable than usual where before he at least tried to hide it through concern trolling but lately he's just been going straight out and not mincing his words.

 

[whalleywhat]

I enjoy a replay of Mario 64 every now and again, but a lot of people actually argue that it has not aged well at all. Many people who went back and played it because it was considered a classic found things like camera being horrible and controls way too loose and slippery. Not to mention the novelty of seeing a Mario game in 3D and certain technical aspects like a large draw distance are not at all appreciated at this day and age.

Most people acknowledge the problems with camera controls, but it's not as if people want new consoles for their advances in camera controls. Everything else you've written here is heresy.

 

[Hoo-doo]

While I can't say I will miss him, he wasn't banned for this thread.
Most likely for this other post (and for a long track record of unbearable fanboyism all around, I would guess).

Maybe a Vita killed his dog.
I still remember him posting a thread titled: "A consolidated list of all of Playstation Vita's flaws" or something like that, containing a ridiculous list filled with conclusion-jumping and straight up trolling. He really despised that poor little handheld.

 

[EatinOlives]

Most people acknowledge the problems with camera controls, but it's not as if people want new consoles for their advances in camera controls. Everything else you've written here is heresy.

Where did I say people want new consoles for better camera controls?

 

[test_account]

True. Once the novelty wears off all that's left is a good/bad game. Same with graphics to me.

Yep, in the end it comes down to how fun the game is to play indeed.

Not necessarily, because im not talking about controls in full. Lets show you why you are completely wrong:

1. Great games, be they Nintendo made or otherwise, strive for a completely classic experience. They use contour and contrast, the elements provide irony of themes. The greatest best example of this would be Super Mario Bros on NES. In level 1 already, the genius of variety and contrast comes into play when Mario is either above ground in a bright happy colorful world, or underground in a dark and spooky place. You see these types of things in ALL great games and great art. Contrast avoids habituation better than not. Great games dont get old as fast because they play on deeper human emotional response, not just controls.

2. On the subject of controls, yes, anything on earth can become habituated to a degree, but lets take a look at what something like wiimote controls do for the player... they provide a much more intuitive method for input. For how many thousands of years have humans swung a tool such as a sword or a bat or a stick using our hands like what is done with a wiimote? Vs moving your thumb on a control stick... one is more natural to true movement. Pointer controls are the same way. While the wiimote, like anything, can become second nature in time, at its core, the experience is more true to natural movements and more simple 1 to 1 connection between player and game. I STILL love wiimote controls. You guys say you hate it and bored already but i know so many people that love it. RE4 on wii rules man. And it does for a reason. Its the control.

And btw, nobody on this thread nor any other thread will "kill" my arguments in a sentence. Ever.

I'm not sure how you can say that i'm completely wrong when the first sentence in your 2nd point says exactly what i said? =)

You first said that when people see new and improved graphics, then they get impressed at first, but after a while they get used to it. It is like this with controls too. When playing for example Wii for the first time, it was a brand new and amazing experience. But after playing five minigame collections and five games that uses pointer controls (like first person shooters etc.), then you know what to expect for the most part regardings how the controls are being used in the games. That feeling you get the first time is gone because you get used to it. This is natural for a lot of things.

About graphics, personally i'm pretty impressed with the graphics in The Last Of US for example, and that is a game on a six year old system. So for me, the graphics factor doesnt necessarily go away after a short while.

What you're talking about here has a lot to do with what people prefer, and this is subjective. There isnt really any right or wrong answer in this case because it comes down to what people prefer and people also have different experiences with things.

RIP pramath, wich post did it?

Why'd he get banned?

I'm not 100% if this is the only reason, but he got banned shortly after this comment:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42673349&postcount=9

 

[CaptNfantasy]

As for the last paragraph, it made me laugh, honestly. I don't know what gave you the idea that I'd worry about rendering leaves without paying attention to gameplay. Not everyone lives in a world of binary.

Well when youve only got so much resources and a bottom line etc, it seems like gameplay sits in the back seat many times more often than it should.

 

[Drago]

Maybe a Vita killed his dog.
I still remember him posting a thread titled: "A consolidated list of all of Playstation Vita's flaws" or something like that, containing a ridiculous list filled with conclusion-jumping and straight up trolling. He really despised that poor little handheld.

here is that thread.

He also made this thread:

The PS Vita Is Doomed Brigade Needs To Stop

so surreal. He was a Vita hater and a lover, depending on the day

 

[whalleywhat]

Where did I say people want new consoles for better camera controls?

His point was that Mario 64 is just as good today as when it was released, and the only reason people think otherwise is that the graphics are dated. You responded that it was dated for reasons other than the graphics. This doesn't have much to do with the idea of 'progress' that's being pushed itt. The camera controls are dated, but that's not what anybody here is talking about.

 

[Lord Ghirahim]

I'm not 100% if this is the only reason, but he got banned shortly after this comment:

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=42673349&postcount=9

Sarcasm is risky.

 

[EatinOlives]

His point was that Mario 64 is just as good today as when it was released, and the only reason people think otherwise is that the graphics are dated. You responded that it was dated for reasons other than the graphics. This doesn't have much to do with the idea of 'progress' that's being pushed itt. The camera controls are dated, but that's not what anybody here is talking about.

Mario 64 today doesn't hold up as well as it did when it released. It just doesn't. You're not going to get the same reception from the consumer if you packaged Mario 64 today and released it in its state for $50, and no, I'm not just saying that because the game's graphics are dated. The gameplay is also dated in terms of the particular implementation. I'm not dissing Mario 64, in case that's what you're driving at. I'm saying that just like any other medium, groundbreaking things get taken and refined to the point where the original doesn't hold up. This is especially true of the early 3D games, where mechanic conventions were not at all established and slowly certain aspects of the gameplay was refined to what it is today. It's got nothing to do with graphics.

Another great example, in case the Mario 64 one isn't as clear, would be Goldeneye on the N64. Groundbreaking title for its time, a completely mediocre shooter by today's gameplay standards.

Well when youve only got so much resources and a bottom line etc, it seems like gameplay sits in the back seat many times more often than it should.

If I had so much resources and a bottom line, the last thing I'd personally do is let gameplay take a back seat.

In case you're wondering, I really, really don't approve of gaming's current fetish du jour, it being short 6 hour campaigns on generic shooters, "setpiece" heavy scriptfests. That doesn't mean that I'm gonna go off the other deep end and arbitrarily declare this is a graphics problem. It, of course, is a gameplay problem. I believe fixing the gameplay involves fixing the gameplay, not insist that it's a graphics problem.

 

[magash]

The thing we need is called a barrier. For example, a hard development costs cap. A limit of how much a company can spend on a single game. And extra taxes for those who goes overboard.

Obviously the industry would never agree to such a rule. That's why things are still the same: The main barrier is the power of a console. It's the reason why I expect development costs to jump again once the PS4/720 are on the market.

You know I wouldn't really mind it if there is such a thing as a development cap but EA et. al will never go for that. As things stand games are already too expensive any increase will just further exacerbate the situation that developers find themselves in.

Another thing that I think often gets overlooked when talking about next gen development costs is that 3rd party developers might find it a bit problematic funding the development of their games. For example Ubisoft often took revenue generated from their Wii/DS shovelware games (Imagine series) and used the revenue to fund the development of HD games. Now that Ubisoft has practically killed off that cash cow they may run into problems should game costs increase again for next gen.

 

[Mxrz]

When this happens the usual suspects will just blow it off and continue to talk about how technological advancement is somehow killing the industry and that for some reason you can't fit gameplay into a game with all those graphics.

Also, hardware does not make games more expensive, software development does. Ironically, better hardware means it's actually easier to develop software. The thing that happens is developers choose to continue growing and pushing the limits of this new hardware, and that is what becomes expensive. Nintendo stopped doing this, and I guess some people are just defending it so hard that they now want to argue that everyone else do the same.

I was worried after the success of the Wii that this is exactly what would happen, but thankfully it seems like innovation (in software development, not in console design) has proven to have longer legs. Nintendo has very cleverly carved out a very safe niche for itself, but I will not agree with people who propose that the entire industry should recoil into a corner and stop chasing the frontier. Nintendo has its market, and you shouldn't have to spend so much time defending what that means actually to you as a 'gamer' in the long run. I'm looking forward to seeing Zelda in HD, but I'm not going to actively support the fact that it's only just now happening. If that's the way it has to be for Nintendo, then so be it - I'm just not going to try to spin it into something that's praiseworthy.

For whatever reasons, people won't let the myth die, or at least acknowledge how much PC-like consoles will help with this. Its crazy its been turned into some kind of console-war-fanboy thing worth arguing about. Its a trend that's been popping up all over gaf lately: New Technology = BAD! Expensive! Doom!

 

[dank0723]

Wii U is releasing this year.

And is on par with tech from 8 years ago.