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

#11TheBonfiniPosted 2/13/2013 2:19:57 PM
knightimex posted...
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.


This makes zero sense. How would developers have reached a threshold of gameplay and graphics? When on older technology were graphics more important than the game play? Was Pong all about teh graphixx or something?

According to this article, they are going to use last gen graphics on Wii-U? What? Why?
---
www.facebook.com/mikebonfini
Sapphic ladies - http://i.imgur.com/hU2rJ.jpg
#12meiyukiPosted 2/13/2013 2:23:24 PM
angry_cowtipper posted...

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.


Square-enix games have progressively gotten MUCH less complex, MUCH less detailed in anything but graphics, and gone MUCH lower on the story development. FF13 is the most linear on rails game they may have ever made in their entire development lifetime, and you want to site them as evidence that graphics arn't hurting gameplay?

Can you think of any other reason games selling in the millions are considered flops other than exploding budget? Or why companies are going out of business by the hundreds?
#13knightimex(Topic Creator)Posted 2/13/2013 2:28:48 PM(edited)
Wii U is also doing things not possible on ps3 and Xbox 360.
Xbox 720 and ps4 will also do things not possible on ps360.

its not going to be about adding 10 billion more polygons to a rock or fine tuning someone's face.
It's going to be about adding to what you already have with the help of improved acceleration.

Think of it like this.
Next gen games will have higher resolution better frame rates more lighting, and more advanced effects in physics and particles.

^ That alone outright destroys last gen all to hell and back.
---
Old School Games FTW!
#14angry_cowtipperPosted 2/13/2013 2:29:14 PM
knightimex posted...
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.


I really don't think CG movies, or movies in general, are comparable with video games. Video games have progressively gotten better looking over time, and will continue to do so. Sorry about Pixar not putting more effort into improving, but, if you look at Far Cry 3 on PS3 vs Far Cry 3 on PC, there's a world of difference. What next gen will look like, at least at launch, is already here. Sleeping Dogs is also a great example of a PC port with a world of difference, or Battlefield 3.

Whatever the reason, companies still seem to consider making PC ports worthwhile, and as the next gen consoles resemble what current PCs can do, and PCs surpass what the next consoles can do in the future, things will continue to get better looking. It's either that, or they can get left behind.
---
Don't Starve (PC), Okami HD (PS3), Halo: Reach (360), Dungeon Defenders (AND), Gravity Rush (VITA)
#15angry_cowtipperPosted 2/13/2013 2:30:10 PM
meiyuki posted...
angry_cowtipper posted...

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.


Square-enix games have progressively gotten MUCH less complex, MUCH less detailed in anything but graphics, and gone MUCH lower on the story development. FF13 is the most linear on rails game they may have ever made in their entire development lifetime, and you want to site them as evidence that graphics arn't hurting gameplay?

Can you think of any other reason games selling in the millions are considered flops other than exploding budget? Or why companies are going out of business by the hundreds?


Sleeping Dogs
Just Cause 2
---
Don't Starve (PC), Okami HD (PS3), Halo: Reach (360), Dungeon Defenders (AND), Gravity Rush (VITA)
#16TheBonfiniPosted 2/13/2013 2:32:38 PM
knightimex posted...
Wii U is also doing things not possible on ps3 and Xbox 360.
Xbox 720 and ps4 will also do things not possible on ps360.

its not going to be about adding 10 billion more polygons to a rock or fine tuning someone's face.
It's going to be about adding to what you already have with the help of improved acceleration.

Think of it like this.
Next gen games will have higher resolution better frame rates more lighting, and more advanced effects in physics and particles.

^ That alone outright destroys last gen all to hell and back.


Can you please inform me of the specific things Nintendo is doing currently that Sony or MS can't?

You haven't even gave one example.
---
www.facebook.com/mikebonfini
Sapphic ladies - http://i.imgur.com/hU2rJ.jpg
#17knightimex(Topic Creator)Posted 2/13/2013 2:44:00 PM(edited)
TheBonfini posted...
knightimex posted...
Wii U is also doing things not possible on ps3 and Xbox 360.
Xbox 720 and ps4 will also do things not possible on ps360.

its not going to be about adding 10 billion more polygons to a rock or fine tuning someone's face.
It's going to be about adding to what you already have with the help of improved acceleration.

Think of it like this.
Next gen games will have higher resolution better frame rates more lighting, and more advanced effects in physics and particles.

^ That alone outright destroys last gen all to hell and back.


Can you please inform me of the specific things Nintendo is doing currently that Sony or MS can't?

You haven't even gave one example.


Other than greater resolutions, better anti aliasing, higher frame rates, better anisotropic filtering, more ram, better lighting, and advances with what you can do with the gamepad all at the same time?

Wonderful 101
Wind Waker HD
Even Pikmin 3 looks better than anything found on ps3 and 360.
The creature at the end of Bayonetta 2 looks amazing and that's in real time.

The hilarious thing is those are merely 1st gen examples.

To put that into scale look at Xbox 360 games at launch to Xbox 360 (7th\8th gen) games just released.

Huge difference.
Wii U already beats 360's 8th gen.
---
Old School Games FTW!
#18PraetorXynPosted 2/13/2013 3:39:43 PM
angry_cowtipper posted...
knightimex posted...
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.


I really don't think CG movies, or movies in general, are comparable with video games. Video games have progressively gotten better looking over time, and will continue to do so. Sorry about Pixar not putting more effort into improving, but, if you look at Far Cry 3 on PS3 vs Far Cry 3 on PC, there's a world of difference. What next gen will look like, at least at launch, is already here. Sleeping Dogs is also a great example of a PC port with a world of difference, or Battlefield 3.

Whatever the reason, companies still seem to consider making PC ports worthwhile, and as the next gen consoles resemble what current PCs can do, and PCs surpass what the next consoles can do in the future, things will continue to get better looking. It's either that, or they can get left behind.


This so much. Far Cry 3 looks terrible on PS3 and the game runs at a crawl FPS-wise.
I haven't seen Sleeping Dogs on consoles, but it's beautiful on PC maxed out.

As to Square-Enix, you can't really blame graphics for how horrible their games are of late. That comes more out of developer laziness and stubbornness in the case of FFXIII (too lazy to design a new setting/characters, and "YOU WILL LOVE LIGHTNING! WE WON'T MAKE ANYTHING ELSE UNTIL YOU DO! RAWWWWWWWWWR!"

To be fair to FFXIII though, I found FFX horribly linear as well.

I always preferred Enix's games over Square's back in the SNES days, even though we didn't get many of them in the states.
#19Virus66Posted 2/13/2013 3:57:37 PM
The most fun games are often the ones that work with technical restraints of some kind. You generally see games go for looking pretty or being really damn fun but have a lot of rough edges on the graphics.
---
PSN: JVir NNID: Jayvir
These days, all the kids are playing M rated games while the adults are lining up for Pokemon. Which game is a kid's game now?