Support NeoGAF

[marc^o^]

Right. You defend them because they're an EASY TARGET, and not because you have any particular preference and not because you agree with their ideology.

I defend them because they are an easy target and I prefer them because I agree with their ideology. Different things indeed, I'm not the fanboy you'd like me to be. Time to go bed, I have an early meeting tomorrow.

 

[Amir0x]

GameCube launched at $100 less, and sold decently for supply, but that price difference only lasted 6 months in the US. From then on it's been mostly $50 cheaper, or a 25-33% savings off the competition. The period when they were again $80-100 less (44-56% less) did see sales shoot up significantly.

Although I'm sure there's some statistical merit to this, I also don't agree with the conclusion you're trying to make here. When a price is dropped for any system, the sales will shoot up. The gap between its competition will always cause SOME subset to choose the cheaper alternative. The vague 'cheapass consumer' that exists in any market.

So I guess I should clarify by saying I don't think it's a significant group of consumers, and certainly not the type of 'gamers' that Nintendo can build a formidable console base off of. And that this consumer is just as likely to buy a more expensive system if the value is right, or if the person they're buying it for wants it enough.

 

[DECK'ARD]

I live for the day when Nintendo actually show what the games look like and how they play, because until then Revolution threads are insufferable.

For all the mocking Nintendo fans get for all their speculation, and wild claims etc. the people convinced the company's decisions are wrong before even seeing what the results are, are no better.

 

[ioi]

I also think Gamecube was much better than N64.

Wow, you do have a very twisted mind.

Graphics are at least 1/3 of the package, and at most 1/2. I'm not a bullshitter.

No, you just have a very strange view on games

One of the most exciting things about games is the prospect of the ever improving visuals, opening up new doors to even greater visual experiences.

Well let's have some examples cause I am struggling to see where you are coming from. Sure better graphics and often a full immersive 3D world can bring a lot to some types of game, but how on earth would Mario Kart be any better with better graphics?

 

[Y2Kev]

I agree with Amir0x. Graphics are integral to my enjoyment of a game. I don't need ridiculously amazing graphics, but games are still a visual artform. I need SOME type of stimulation on that level.

 

[ioi]

I agree with Amir0x. Graphics are integral to my enjoyment of a game. I don't need ridiculously amazing graphics, but games are still a visual artform. I need SOME type of stimulation on that level.

So Mario Kart on PS3 running in HD with surround sound is better than Mario Kart DS?

 

[Y2Kev]

Hell yeah it would be. That sounds awesome. Mmmm...that's an immersive experience. Imagine hearing the sounds of Peach's little girly cart behind you as she drives past!

Better graphics can make any existing experience more immersive, but it shouldn't necessarily limit new experiences.

 

[AniHawk]

So Mario Kart on PS3 running in HD with surround sound is better than Mario Kart DS?

Yes.

 

[ioi]

Yes.

Well there's no hope for you!!

 

[MrSardonic]

Graphics are integral to my enjoyment of a game. I don't need ridiculously amazing graphics, but games are still a visual artform. I need SOME type of stimulation on that level.

And how exactly is Revolution going to fail to meet your requirements on graphics?

 

[AniHawk]

And how exactly is Revolution going to fail to meet your requirements on graphics?

If 360 is barely next gen (and that's being generous here), then how is the weaker Revolution going to be graphically impressive?

 

[ioi]

And how exactly is Revolution going to fail to meet your requirements on graphics?

Exactly. Everyone seems to think that Rev is gonna have Saturn level graphics for some reason. It's still gonna be a significant jump from GC, probably akin to PS2 from DC from what we've heard instead of DC to XB like with PS3 and X360, but that never did PS2 any harm did it?

 

[Y2Kev]

And how exactly is Revolution going to fail to meet your requirements on graphics?

Did I say that it wouldn't? I never said a word about the Revolution's graphical powers in this thread.

 

[Amir0x]

Wow, you do have a very twisted mind.

Wow ioi, you're right... I like systems that have about five thousand times better developer support, a trillion times better visuals and refined sequels to every significant Nintendo franchise. I sure am twisted!

No, you just have a very strange view on games

:lol

Well let's have some examples cause I am struggling to see where you are coming from. Sure better graphics and often a full immersive 3D world can bring a lot to some types of game, but how on earth would Mario Kart be any better with better graphics?

My job is not to persuade you. If a Mario Kart game came out with significantly better graphics, yes it would be much better than a Mario Kart game that was the same except it had worse visuals. It's pretty simple.

 

[ioi]

My job is not to persuade you. If a Mario Kart game came out with significantly better graphics, yes it would be much better than a Mario Kart game that was the same except it had worse visuals. It's pretty simple.

It's not, explain it to me.

How would it be much better exactly?

 

[Y2Kev]

My job is not to persuade you. If a Mario Kart game came out with significantly better graphics, yes it would be much better than a Mario Kart game that was the same except it had worse visuals. It's pretty simple.

I don't believe people can't agree with this. I just can't comprehend why someone wouldn't think that better graphics added to an already solid game structure would make the game better.

Obviously Nintendo is going to sell to its core without any question. Nintendo better charge 249 at launch so they can get all the apologists to splurge on the not "saturn" level hardware. :lol

 

[Amir0x]

It's not, explain it to me.

How would it be much better exactly?

Because it has much better visuals.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

It's not, explain it to me.

How would it be much better exactly?

If the gameplay, features... pretty much everything besides graphics is the same, then PS3 Mario Kart would be better than DS Mario Kart would be better than NES Mario Kart would be better than 2600 Mario Kart. What is there to explain?

 

[littlewig]

A game with the same exact graphics will be better if it had better gameplay, more so then making the graphics better.

 

[ioi]

I don't believe people can't agree with this. I just can't comprehend why someone wouldn't think that better graphics added to an already solid game structure would make the game better.

Obviously Nintendo is going to sell to its core without any question. Nintendo better charge 249 at launch so they can get all the apologists to splurge on the not "saturn" level hardware. :lol

At a push I could accept that an identical game could be considered slightly better with better graphics. It's the MUCH BETTER part that I'm struggling with.

Maybe the fact that my favourite racing game of all time is F-Zero X (the most perfect implementation of analogue control I've ever experienced in a game) and the fact that it had shit graphics and presentation and that I just couldn't get into F-Zero GX probably means that you'll never be able to convince me.

 

[Y2Kev]

Actually, for its time, the graphics were pretty good. Simplistic, but also remember the game ran at 60 FPS. It felt lightning fast. I consider framerate part of graphics.

 

[Amir0x]

Too bad about that, 'cause F-Zero GX is like one of the best racing games ever and F-Zero X isn't to me. If only for the vast canyons of visual differences were we to meet on the other end of the river, hand in hand.

 

[elostyle]

I don't believe people can't agree with this. I just can't comprehend why someone wouldn't think that better graphics added to an already solid game structure would make the game better.

The number of people that believe adding more control interactivity to an already solid game structure wouldn't make it better is at least equal. That I can't comprehend.

 

[Y2Kev]

I AM NOT EVEN TALKING ABOUT THE REVOLUTIONARY FEATURES.

We're arguing on a very fundamental level regarding graphical improvements. People keep dragging in, "But gameplay!" or "But control!" which is completely exclusive from what I am talking about.

A great game will be better with better graphics. This statement is completely independent of anything else you wish to drag into the conversation.

 

[ioi]

If the gameplay, features... pretty much everything besides graphics is the same, then PS3 Mario Kart would be better than DS Mario Kart would be better than NES Mario Kart would be better than 2600 Mario Kart. What is there to explain?

Again I can see where he's coming from, but why an identical game would be MUCH better because of better graphics is something I just can't grasp, it has no effect whatsoever on how the game plays or how much fun you can have out of it (with some exceptions- we're using Mario Kart as an example here) and the idea that better graphics is a significant part of the gaming experience only supports my disillusionment with the industry even more.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

A game with the same exact graphics will be better if it had better gameplay, more so then making the graphics better.

If all else remains equal, then any improvement in any part would make a game better.

At a push I could accept that an identical game could be considered slightly better with better graphics. It's the MUCH BETTER part that I'm struggling with.

Maybe the fact that my favourite racing game of all time is F-Zero X (the most perfect implementation of analogue control I've ever experienced in a game) and the fact that it had shit graphics and presentation and that I just couldn't get into F-Zero GX probably means that you'll never be able to convince me.

How are we supposed to define MUCH? F-Zero X is not the same game as F-Zero GX.

 

[Galactic Fork]

My job is not to persuade you. If a Mario Kart game came out with significantly better graphics, yes it would be much better than a Mario Kart game that was the same except it had worse visuals. It's pretty simple.

I'm not sure how much I can agree with this. A fun game is a fun game. The original Final Fantasy is just as fun as the remake for the GBA, same with the old Super Mario All Stars VS, the super marios it contains. They look a lot nicer, but they're still the same game. I think the only thing you can say for sure is that "it looks better." The quality of the game is still the same. I personally enjoy MKS more than double dash, and double dash has better visuals than MKS. Also, I think a MKS with better graphics would still be MKS. I think it's all about how much fun I can get out of the game rather than how pretty it is. But neh, that's me. I just don't think "it's pretty simple," I think it varies from person to person.

 

[Oblivion]

Too bad about that, 'cause F-Zero GX is like one of the best racing games ever and F-Zero X isn't to me. If only for the vast canyons of visual differences were we to meet on the other end of the river, hand in hand.

I agree with you on that, but mainly because Fzero GX was one of the few Nintendo GC games that actually surpassed the previous generation's attempt.

 

[Amir0x]

No, it's still pretty simple GGG. Same game, except one has better graphics. One with better graphics is much better. That's as simple as it gets. If you claim they are equal, then, there's nothing more we can say. I'll laugh, be extremely sarcastic toward future comments you make, and we'll move on.

 

[ioi]

How are we supposed to define MUCH? F-Zero X is not the same game as F-Zero GX.

Read back to what I quoted. I questioned Amirox's comment about "much better". I agree that improving any one part of an otherwise identical game with make it better. Of course it will. But not improving the graphics in a Mario Kart game will not make me want to play it any less as graphics are totally irrelevant to me in that game, same with F-Zero X.

As someone commented, F-Zero X was FAST and had a very good framerate which made the accuracy of the analogue control and the skill in which you can take corners more prominent than in F-Zero GX where I found the experience more like Wipeout and Extreme G. I think in the case of F-Zero X, the simplicity actually added to the experience, and if a new F-Zero game is made then I want simple, cartoony graphics.

 

[ioi]

No, it's still pretty simple GGG. Same game, except one has better graphics. One with better graphics is much better. That's as simple as it gets. If you claim they are equal, then, there's nothing more we can say. I'll laugh, be extremely sarcastic toward future comments you make, and we'll move on.

It's still that word much that I'm struggling with...

 

[Amir0x]

It's still that word much that I'm struggling with...

There's nothing to struggle with. I'd MUCH rather play the game with better visuals, therefore the same game but with better visuals is MUCH better.

But the fact that you're struggling with this subjective value of increased quality says a lot.

 

[ioi]

There's nothing to struggle with. I'd MUCH rather play the game with better visuals, therefore the same game but with better visuals is MUCH better.

But the fact that you're struggling with this subjective value of increased quality says a lot.

Well it simply says that you value graphics much more highly than I do which is a shame.

 

[Amir0x]

Well it simply says that you value graphics much more highly than I do which is a shame.

What's a shame about it?

 

[ioi]

What's a shame about it?

That you'd miss out on some great gaming experiences just because the graphics weren't that good.

Simple. As. That.

 

[JoshuaJSlone]

As someone commented, F-Zero X was FAST and had a very good framerate which made the accuracy of the analogue control and the skill in which you can take corners more prominent than in F-Zero GX where I found the experience more like Wipeout and Extreme G. I think in the case of F-Zero X, the simplicity actually added to the experience, and if a new F-Zero game is made then I want simple, cartoony graphics.

What this sounds like to me is that you're saying in this case you thought X's graphics were better than GX's, which improved the experience. I can see that; X had the speed and fluidity down, with really only some distance issues which bugged me. GX then built onto that with a lot of flash.

But if F-Zero X emulated on the Revolution happened to improve the resolution and maybe add some anti-aliasing, I'd be pleased.

 

[Amir0x]

That you'd miss out on some great gaming experiences just because the graphics weren't that good.

Simple. As. That.

I don't miss out on experiences because the graphics aren't that good. It just prevents the experience from being as good as it could be.

 

[littlewig]

Bah, I played Pokemon Leaf Green on the GBA, but I enjoy playing the original better. Graphics overated!

Some games just lose their charm after a graphics overhaul.

 

[DJ Sl4m]

That you'd miss out on some great gaming experiences just because the graphics weren't that good.

Simple. As. That.

Maybe it's not that simple.

Joust is a great multiplayer game, and playing it on Xbox is fun, but playing it on an HDTV through the 360 is just as fun, but it's easier to appriciate the beauty and game more.

 

[ioi]

What this sounds like to me is that you're saying in this case you thought X's graphics were better than GX's, which improved the experience. I can see that; X had the speed and fluidity down, with really only some distance issues which bugged me. GX then built onto that with a lot of flash.

But if F-Zero X emulated on the Revolution happened to improve the resolution and maybe add some anti-aliasing, I'd be pleased.

Exactly.

I think it's a good example of a game in which simpler graphics improve the gameplay and so surely destroys the idea that better graphics = better game.

In some cases maybe. RE4, MGS, Zelda, GT graphics will greatly improve the game. In others it will have no effect and in others I think so called "better graphics" (i.e. more detailed, realistic) will actually hinder the game and add unneccessary complication to what may be a wonderfully simple game.

It's the "graphics are an essential experience to a game", "better graphics means a much better game" that I take issue with.

I don't think it's that clear cut at all and in some cases plain wrong.

 

[VeryHungryCaterpillar]

A great game will be better with better graphics.

Like MGS:TS

 

[Amir0x]

Like MGS:TS

MGS:TS is in no way the same game as MGS.

 

[VeryHungryCaterpillar]

MGS:TS is in no way the same game as MGS.

Right, it's better. YMMV.

 

[ioi]

Right, it's better. YMMV.

MUCH better in fact.

 

[Galactic Fork]

No, it's still pretty simple GGG. Same game, except one has better graphics. One with better graphics is much better. That's as simple as it gets. If you claim they are equal, then, there's nothing more we can say. I'll laugh, be extremely sarcastic toward future comments you make, and we'll move on.

Well for Nintendo's sake, I hope more people hold my view, especially with ports. But that being said, I'm sure Nintendo is betting that the different and hopefully more enjoyable gameplay from the the cotroller will be enough to make games more appealing than just a game that looks prettier.

 

[Amir0x]

No actually, see, everything isn't equal between MGS and MGS:TS. That defeats the whole point of our comparrisons. The cutscenes are worse, some of the new additions break the old gameplay, etc...etc...

Therefore, we can assume the improvement of the graphics is negated by the worsening of the gameplay. Remember, graphics are only 1/3 or 1/2 the package. This ignores the fact that gameplay is, indeed, at least the other half.

Well for Nintendo's sake, I hope more people hold my view, especially with ports. But that being said, I'm sure Nintendo is betting that the different and hopefully more enjoyable gameplay from the the cotroller will be enough to make games more appealing than just a game that looks prettier.

I don't think you quite understand. My viewpoint isn't at odds with Nintendo's viewpoint necessarily. Revmote may make it so that the gameplay improves such that it equals the graphics improvements of other systems. Gameplay is at least as important as graphics, and can often be more important.

 

[JJConrad]

No actually, see, everything isn't equal between MGS and MGS:TS. That defeats the whole point of our comparrisons. The cutscenes are worse, some of the new additions break the old gameplay, etc...etc...

Don't start that now!!!!

Therefore, we can assume the improvement of the graphics is negated by the worsening of the gameplay. Remember, graphics are only 1/3 or 1/2 the package. This ignores the fact that gameplay is, indeed, at least the other half.

I don't remember you being such a graphics-whore.

I can't agree with you at all. Infact, with every example given in this thread I prefer to play the old-ugly version over the pretty version. In the case of SMAll-Stars, I also would much rather play the originals over any the remake counterparts, because graphics just aren't that important.

Truth be told, I find your viewpoint to be selective and disingeunous (how ever you spell that ). Why be satified with any of the next-gen consoles? They could all be more powerful than they are, if only their developer was willing to spend more money, or if you were. None of them are at their full potential... because "full potential" is compltely relative to each person.

Thankfully, graphics are not that important. They not 1/2 or even a 1/3 or even 1/10 of what matters. Looking at the top selling games from last year and that the least powerful console and handheld are slaughtering their more powerful competitors, there isn't much room to argue otherwise.

 

[ioi]

I don't think you quite understand. My viewpoint isn't at odds with Nintendo's viewpoint necessarily. Revmote may make it so that the gameplay improves such that it equals the graphics improvements of other systems. Gameplay is at least as important as graphics, and can often be more important.

So again, can you not see any situation in which "worse" graphics could actually benefit a game?

 

[Galactic Fork]

I don't think you quite understand. My viewpoint isn't at odds with Nintendo's viewpoint necessarily. Revmote may make it so that the gameplay improves such that it equals the graphics improvements of other systems. Gameplay is at least as important as graphics, and can often be more important.

Right but you think that Nintnedo should have made the Revolution with the Revmote AND PS3 graphics. But a lot of people here don't think that's necessary and nintendo is banking on it. They are going for great controls + decent graphics + low price + hopefully good online + backwards compatible. They believe that the controls and price will offset the graphics. In a previous post you stated it was stupid of them. I just disagree with that. I personally will happily take a graphical hit if it means lower price but still getting the controls. This is of course assuming the controls are as revolutionary as Nintendo claims, which remains to be seen. It's all very subjective.

 

[Amir0x]

So again, can you not see any situation in which "worse" graphics could actually benefit a game?

Nope.

Truth be told, I find your viewpoint to be selective and disingeunous (how ever you spell that ). Why be satified with any of the next-gen consoles? They could all be more powerful than they are, if only their developer was willing to spend more money, or if you were. None of them are at their full potential... because "full potential" is compltely relative to each person.

I'm not satisifed with next-gen consoles. It's only good for the currently available technology. Eventually, next-gen will look stale and I'll want more. Naturally.