Developers would rather make fun games than high resolution nose hairs.

#1knightimexPosted 2/13/2013 2:04:51 PM
Source: Games Magazine (The Future is here) Issue 130 Page 22-27.

games tm: The more reliant people are on content. the less reliant they are on technology - spending all of their budget on particles and the detail in the face doesn't affect the game. it doesn't affect the game's experience. Once you've reached a certain level you've got it., and you can forget about it - and focus on just making great games.

You're not looking at games because of (technology); you're looking at them because they're fantastic experiences because of their fantastic content. It's a nice place to be and hopefully that will continue.

Surely there's a downside? Yes.
Says Smith: "If people focused on the opposite of what I said - If they decide to focus on the technology, on modelling eyelashes, if it becomes an arms race of who can do the most detailed nostril, then we're not in a very good place.

TL:DR: We'd rather use the same graphics as last gen, doctor them up and add some things not possible to do with consoles such as ps3 and Xbox 360.

^ Clearly a sign that developers have reached a threshold where gameplay > graphics.
As graphics in the eyes of a developer are "good enough".

This is good news for wii u.
---
Old School Games FTW!
#2Bahamut_10thPosted 2/13/2013 2:07:00 PM
knightimex posted...


^ Clearly a sign that developers have reached a threshold where gameplay > graphics.
As graphics in the eyes of a developer are "good enough".



Except for the people who want to sell the idea that graphics are more important than that, and sell their engines and software specifically to look pretty.
#3Prince ShondronaiPosted 2/13/2013 2:07:11 PM
knightimex posted...

Says Smith: "If people focused on the opposite of what I said - If they decide to focus on the technology, on modelling eyelashes, if it becomes an arms race of who can do the most detailed nostril, then we're not in a very good place.


So SquareEnix, then.
---
One of us. One of us. One of us.
#4angry_cowtipperPosted 2/13/2013 2:07:22 PM
There's no reason you can't have both. There is no reason great looking games can't be fun, and no reason fun games have to look dated.
---
Don't Starve (PC), Okami HD (PS3), Halo: Reach (360), Dungeon Defenders (AND), Gravity Rush (VITA)
#5knightimex(Topic Creator)Posted 2/13/2013 2:09:36 PM
angry_cowtipper posted...
There's no reason you can't have both. There is no reason great looking games can't be fun, and no reason fun games have to look dated.


Cost of development says other wise.
Script doesn't write it's self and graphics can't draw them selves.

Dat $ has to come from someone from somewhere per something.
---
Old School Games FTW!
#6rafiiillaPosted 2/13/2013 2:11:05 PM
angry_cowtipper posted...
There's no reason you can't have both. There is no reason great looking games can't be fun, and no reason fun games have to look dated.


Yeah but for developers it's expensive, right? will they invest resources on graphics or in history/gameplay... if they do both, they will have to invest more (the price of the games rises)
---
NNID: rafiiilla
#7HungtotheoverPosted 2/13/2013 2:11:40 PM
Dat caveman topic
---
Big racks are awesome....................................more space for games. -gamefaqs
#8Poopcorn13Posted 2/13/2013 2:15:30 PM
knightimex posted...
angry_cowtipper posted...
There's no reason you can't have both. There is no reason great looking games can't be fun, and no reason fun games have to look dated.


Cost of development says other wise.
Script doesn't write it's self and graphics can't draw them selves.

Dat $ has to come from someone from somewhere per something.

Not to mention, time constraints. As much as we wish developers have all the time they need to make a great game, they are running on a schedule. There's only so much time you can devote to good graphics/ great gameplay without neglecting the other.
---
You am no real super sand. - Virginia
#9angry_cowtipperPosted 2/13/2013 2:15:52 PM
knightimex posted...
angry_cowtipper posted...
There's no reason you can't have both. There is no reason great looking games can't be fun, and no reason fun games have to look dated.


Cost of development says other wise.
Script doesn't write it's self and graphics can't draw them selves.

Dat $ has to come from someone from somewhere per something.


Games that look awesome and play awesome say otherwise otherwise. Somewhere, somehow, even companies like Square-Enix are able to squeeze together the funds to make what will be next-gen looking ports of current onto PCs, where they have to account for any number of configurations; probably the lowest selling versions of those games too. If who you've cited lacks the financial muscle to make games what they will be expected to be, they will suffer critically and commercially. People want better graphics, and there's no reason they can't have them.
---
Don't Starve (PC), Okami HD (PS3), Halo: Reach (360), Dungeon Defenders (AND), Gravity Rush (VITA)
#10knightimex(Topic Creator)Posted 2/13/2013 2:19:15 PM
knightimex posted...
angry_cowtipper posted...
There's no reason you can't have both. There is no reason great looking games can't be fun, and no reason fun games have to look dated.


Cost of development says other wise.
Script doesn't write it's self and graphics can't draw them selves.

Dat $ has to come from someone from somewhere per something.


You really have to question your definition of "dated" graphics.

Look at movies like Shrek a movie from 2001.
CG movies haven't really looked much better since then.

That level of quality takes some SERIOUS rendering at insane levels.
Consoles will never see that level of quality any time even in the distant future.

Even extreme high end PCs will be required to run what Square Enix showed as a demo.
Something leagues ahead of consoles.
---
Old School Games FTW!