I don't care about graphics and gimmicks. I'm a real gamer.

#41smash66Posted 5/1/2013 1:07:29 AM
ORANGE666 posted...
Buretsu posted...


No, but in the rush to keep up with the constantly improving bar of graphics, more and more of those budgets are going to graphics out the backside, with an increasing stagnation in the rest of the game.



Which is an even bigger drain on the budget. Why do you think games are being called failures which sell millions of units? Hell, the new Tomb Raider sold 3.4 million copies.. and completely failed to meet Square Enix's expectations.


You still haven't provided evidence as to why having good graphics must sacrifice gameplay. Tomb Raider had great gameplay and presentation as well as good graphics.

Also, how do you even make better gameplay with money? The only thing money will allow you to do like I mentioned is program better AI and Physics, both of which Nintendo doesn't try to do. So it must not be what you mean by gameplay.

So explain what Nintendo does that cutting down on graphics would allow them to make better gameplay?


'm interested as well. It seems that Nintendo fans like to think that any game with good graphics can't have a good gameplay.
#42shaunmePosted 5/1/2013 1:11:13 AM
people still respond to buretsu??

HE DOSEN'T OWN A WII U
---
i72600k @4.6 // ASUS P8P67 WS Revolution // 8gb ram // 3x MSI GTX 680 sli // 1tb HD//W8pro//NNID shaunme1//PSN poselecta//XBL CursiveA//STEAM shaunmelwell//
#43dsar901Posted 5/1/2013 4:46:00 AM
If you were a real gamer why are you playing on a console who's main gimmick is a boring tablet controller which has been done to death since the ds was released, and which has largely boring casual party games like Nintendo Land? Where are Nintendo's great games? A real gamer needs to play a lot of great games, and can only play this on the ps3 or xbox 360 and upcoming consoles the wii and wii u do not offer the depth of gameplay, challenging gameplay and genre variety of these hd consoles, they are simply minigame casual consoles, I don't think a real gamer would like that type of console. WHich is why you're not a real gamer
#44Rennik RepotsirPosted 5/1/2013 6:00:33 AM
2wingedangel posted...
How do you define a "real" gamer?


It's a useless term that has no meaning used by people who like to brag about sitting on their ass staring at a screen and pressing buttons for hours on end...
---
FREE BUMP!!!
The person above suffers from IAD.</post>
#45Neo_HeartlessPosted 5/1/2013 6:43:09 AM
smash66 posted...
ORANGE666 posted...
Buretsu posted...


No, but in the rush to keep up with the constantly improving bar of graphics, more and more of those budgets are going to graphics out the backside, with an increasing stagnation in the rest of the game.



Which is an even bigger drain on the budget. Why do you think games are being called failures which sell millions of units? Hell, the new Tomb Raider sold 3.4 million copies.. and completely failed to meet Square Enix's expectations.


You still haven't provided evidence as to why having good graphics must sacrifice gameplay. Tomb Raider had great gameplay and presentation as well as good graphics.

Also, how do you even make better gameplay with money? The only thing money will allow you to do like I mentioned is program better AI and Physics, both of which Nintendo doesn't try to do. So it must not be what you mean by gameplay.

So explain what Nintendo does that cutting down on graphics would allow them to make better gameplay?


'm interested as well. It seems that Nintendo fans like to think that any game with good graphics can't have a good gameplay.


That person's question was actually answered in the very post he quoted.

Tomb Raider had great graphics and Tresseme Hair, and gameplay is... well... subjective, but it was solid enough to play. The game sold at least 3.4 million copies...

And it was deemed a failure by Square Enix. Now it wasn't as advertised as your average Call of Duty, so how much did they spend on everything to make so many sales a financial failure?

The problem is companies these days have no concept of budget limitations. They have 5 people doing the work of 1 and they make and remake parts over and over again. Look how much Bioshock Infinite changed in development. How much would that have cost?

Are graphics important? They can be when done right, but I'm shocked no one's mentioned the truly important part of graphics: Art style. Look at Okami. It's touted as one of the most visually stunning games of our time, and it came out on the PS2. It wasn't anti-aliasing and 1080p that did this, it was a well implimented art style.

Compare again Yoshi's Island to the announced 3DS one. The original stands the test of time before of its vibrant a colourful visuals, the 3D one looks washed out in comparison, the graphical upgrade has done it no good because they've botched the artstyle.

tl:dr, game budgets are overinflated and Art style trumps graphics.
---
[Wubeth Intensifies]
#46icarus231Posted 5/1/2013 6:56:08 AM
ChaoticVortex posted...
These two things are killing the industry.

Want to know why Nintendo is taking so long to release games? Instead of focusing on what matters (the gameplay), they are wasting time and money on HD graphics and forcing their employees to shoehorn gamepad gimmicks into their games.

I hate how that's all game companies care about these days because of greed. They had a great core audience, that was slowly but surely growing and what did they do? Drool over other non-game companies being more successful over these two things and being more appealing to casuals. But casuals as proven by the Wii to Wii U sales aren't even loyal so why waste time on them?


Its called progress. When the first mouse came out was it a gimmick? The first rumble pad? Only people lacking intellegence want the same system with the same features and the same options year after year. A REAL gamer wants to have new experiences not the same game with a new name each year.