Post by: Renny on September 29, 2005, 10:08:53 AM
Here's an interesting interview with Fumito Ueda. Also check out the trailer (no sound) at Eurogamer.
Post by: vudu on September 29, 2005, 10:25:43 AM
It looks like a great concept. The art direction is truly awe-inspiring. However, the bulk of the gameplay seems to be boss fights, so I'm not sure if it will hold up after a few hours.
Post by: KDR_11k on September 29, 2005, 10:40:05 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on September 29, 2005, 11:08:37 AM
Anyway, this looks really cool. At first it struck me as being much more of a traditional fantasy game than Zelda, but it seems just about as unique after looking at the trailer. It definitely looks like something I want to check out, but I'm not sure if that style of gameplay (based on the trailer alone) is enough to last an entire game.
Art direction is cool, the sense of scale is amazing, and it looks very interesting, I'm just not sure if climbing on giant monsters will last me several hours.
Post by: Renny on September 29, 2005, 03:50:38 PM
As far as demo versus final quality: IGN claims it has improved significantly for the final (or at least press) version.
No real reviews yet. According to GameRankings, PSM gave it a 4.5/5 and Game Informer gave it a 8.75(the hell?)/10. I'll post again as soon as something worthwhile comes in.
Post by: stevey on September 30, 2005, 04:25:07 PM
Post by: Renny on October 01, 2005, 08:29:58 AM
There's a demo available with pre-order at GameStop. I'll give impressions after I go through Ico. Compare and contrast!
Post by: vudu on October 03, 2005, 10:19:12 AM
Post by: Renny on October 03, 2005, 10:50:34 AM
Yeah. Rant over. Demo time.
Post by: Renny on October 03, 2005, 04:25:19 PM
Framerate: slow. Insult to injury, they add a blurring effect in the distance when moving fast or when quickly panning the camera. The result is nausea and some lovely artifacting on the trailing edge of the screen. Nice.
Draw-in: bountiful. The video at IGN seems to suggest this isn't a problem in the final build. I guess we'll see.
Camera: hindrance. It was annoying up close to the colossus, but you get accustomed to it. Not really a problem. You become acclimated quickly. Riding Argo though, it still feels weird. Also "Invert" means two different things when talking about the free camera versus the weapon camera. I don't know what to make of that. Little demo snafu, I hope.
Controls: wonky. But you get used to them. If I didn't have a headache from the one-two combo of inconsistent framerate and useless blurring, I'd expound on that.
Argo: you get your own category, you polygonal sack of sinew. I can't tell if he's inebriated or about to retire. This is one unreliable horse. Call him, and he might show up. Odds are if he didn't follow you right up your ass the whole time, he won't be there when you need him. Like any horse, he is averse to suicide, so he'll avoid lethal falls. Surprisingly he'll still gracefully navigate the edge of a cliff. Try to ride him between some pillars, though, and he'll take a detour all the way around. You nut.
Art: beautiful. But the characters actually look worse in motion. Some sacrifice in the environment would have gone a long way towards improving the main character that occupies the foreground of your view to the entire game.
There isn't a hell of a lot to do in the demo. I'll post about the good points eventually.
Post by: Renny on October 05, 2005, 06:48:43 AM
Both exploring and battling the 'bosses' are equally fun. The game just has some very palpable technical issues that need sorted, if the game wants to be great. I think it will still be very good even if the final version has some of these problems remaining.
Post by: Renny on October 10, 2005, 07:03:17 PM
Post by: Renny on October 17, 2005, 11:16:37 AM
Post by: couchmonkey on October 17, 2005, 12:23:45 PM
Post by: Renny on October 19, 2005, 09:07:06 PM
Framerate is improved, still slow in places. Not locked at all really. Ridiculous blurring is still in place and looks the same (bad). Environmental detail is significantly improved, and draw-in is less obvious though still present obviously. Camera still confounds you sometimes, though it is improved. Awkward nonetheless. Invert camera and invert weapon are still contradictory. Oh well. Controls feel better, even with the camera. Horse maneuvers nicely once you get the hang of it. In respect to AI, Agro is now useful. He stays near and comes when you call him. Still a nut and goes running off then running back sometimes, but he's quite reliable now. He just has character. :¬]
The visuals are improved in general by a considerable margin. You start out noticing the PS2's characteristics, but the game quickly draws you into its beautiful gaze and doesn't let you go. The jaggies, poor textures, shimmering; none of it matters once you realize just how vast and organically intricate the world is, and you've taken down a beast. It's incredible so far.
Post by: vudu on October 20, 2005, 08:54:13 AM
Post by: Renny on October 20, 2005, 11:38:27 AM
Post by: Ymeegod on October 29, 2005, 01:02:22 PM
Yeah, that sums it up nicely. Hate having it "auto" zoom even though you're trying to manual zoom out. Really annoying at the last colosso (16th) where you have to leap from his hands.
Overall Renny hit most of it's faults in the graphically department (pop-ins, blurred texture) and the slow-downs but the pros easily out shine the cons.
Kinda anti-climax ending is another con I would say. Basically after the final colossus you're going have two mini-levels where you can't do much other than move, I don't think you can actually "win".
I'll give it an 8.5/10 myself with it's simple but unique gameplay being it's selling point.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 29, 2005, 11:12:26 PM
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on October 31, 2005, 02:55:36 PM
Post by: Bill Aurion on October 31, 2005, 02:58:51 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 31, 2005, 03:55:13 PM
Post by: kirby_killer_dedede on October 31, 2005, 04:05:53 PM
Which, completely off topic, why in hell was Madagascar such a highly anticipated game/why is it still selling so well?
Post by: couchmonkey on November 01, 2005, 05:36:43 AM
Post by: KDR_11k on November 01, 2005, 09:06:01 AM
Post by: nickmitch on November 01, 2005, 01:22:34 PM
Wait, that would mean that they are actually reading the MSRP labels!!!!
Oh, praise be to
!But, it'll only be a matter of time before they want GTA and mommy can't stand the crying.
Post by: KDR_11k on November 01, 2005, 08:09:31 PM
Post by: Svevan on October 26, 2006, 05:07:20 PM
Shadow of the Colossus as Fantasy: The very first theme that strikes us with power in SotC is that of fantasy. The world and characters are foreign, their interactions even moreso. The rules and history of the story are left out (the sword, Dormin's true nature, the relationship between the sword and Dormin, the relationship between Wander, Mono, and the shaman) deliberately to enhance our sense that this world exists on its own and we get only glimpses of it. While exploring the world we see glimpses of a culture or society that seemed to have rules that we will never know. Their structures at one time had purpose but they are now dilapidated and functionless. Their history is as vital to the plot as any other element, but it remains mysterious throughout. The game is true fantasy in that its plot is moving and universal even though its details are tantalizingly absent.
Shadow of the Colossus as Mystery-Narrative: Along with the mysterious "rules" of this fantasy universe is the mystery of the plot. (Who are the Colossi? Where did they come from? Who is Dormin? Who is the Shaman?) Satisfactorily, this mystery gets resolved for us in the end, but as we progress through the game we come to question the character's motivations and Dormin's. In the end we discover that as true as Wander's motivation was, Dormin's was evil and he took advantage of Wander. Absurdly, the game does absolutely NOTHING with its plot for the entire game. We are given a set up and the mystery grows as things are NOT explained. Because of Dormin's claim that destroying the Colossi may cost Wander a great deal, we race to the end to find out why. This is masterful Hitchcockian suspense storytelling that involves us as players since progress is in our hands. This mystery narrative, therefore, demands the participation of the player to keep its suspense. As a film, SotC would fail.
Shadow of the Colossus as Religious Manifesto: Wander is a religious rebel - Mono has been sacrificed, but he rejects this typical "mortal" way of death and dying, and demands a resurrection in defiance to the Shaman. He believes he is taking advantage of a great God, Dormin, who merely wants to destroy lesser gods around him, and each Colossi represents the Japanese conception of a god. That each one has a weak point is also typical to this pagan view, since each is ultimately fallible, nothing more than powerful men/animals. At first SotC seems to be a story about man conquering God, when in reality it is about a Demon exploiting man at the expense of divine order. If there is a real God, or a group of benevelont Gods in this world, we never hear from them. Perhaps Dormin was this benevolent God himself, but breaking him into 16 pieces was an act of defiance by his people. Or perhaps he was an evil being, but this seems to go against the existence of an altar that he inhabits, known as The Shrine of Worship. Whatever the interpretation, SotC is constantly bringing up questions about the nature of man and God, particularly with Wander absorbing the spirits of the Colossi and eventually becoming the vessel for Dormin's rebirth. This is a quintessentially pagan perspective, brilliantly developed by the game's story and gameplay.
Shadow of the Colossus as uCatastrophe: uCatastrophe is a term borrowed from Tolkien. It is the opposite of a catastrophe which is a terrible event that happens unexpectedly. A uCatastrophe is a glorious, sometimes divine event that also happens unexpectedly. Tolkien's basis was the death of Christ, which in biblical terms was Satan's doing, but God ultimately used, even planned it for the redemption of his people. In this sense, Dormin's exploitation of Wander was an evil act, but since the Shaman destroyed Dormin and left a baby (meanwhile Mono is revived, and Agro is still alive!), it seems that a greater force was working here. The ending indicates hope for a new world to grow on this once forbidden land - perhaps Dormin's work of evil will actually bring about prosperity? I need to play Ico and find out.
Anyways, those are my thoughts. Anyone else who has played the game care to critique or comment?
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on October 26, 2006, 05:20:31 PM
Post by: Svevan on October 26, 2006, 05:22:36 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 07:01:48 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 26, 2006, 07:33:37 PM
Had they filled the world with some quests and some small enemies along the way to the colossus, and perhaps some small villages, I think this game would've gone from pretty good to great or amazing.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 26, 2006, 08:25:28 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I agree with VG. The game is pretty good, but would've been better off as a PS3 game. I fell asleep numerous times while playing this game because there is nothing engaging going on up until you find a colossus. No music, no life, nothing, plus it always seems dark and depressing like VG also said.
Had they filled the world with some quests and some small enemies along the way to the colossus, and perhaps some small villages, I think this game would've gone from pretty good to great or amazing.
Well if the rumors are true, there could be a sequel in development for PS3 and that is one out of very few reasons to get one. I would like to see more life and more to do there, I realize the point is "isolation" but you can achieve that without a totally dead landscape with only Collosus to fight!
Post by: Smoke39 on October 26, 2006, 08:35:46 PM
Post by: Svevan on October 26, 2006, 08:45:17 PM
After all, we're talking about a completely dead civilzation and a forbidden land - emptiness is necessary. I really felt the sense of isolation this game was trying to convey, much unlike the dark world in LttP, or the future in OoT, or any other similar game world. By removing all other characters and enemies the game emphasized that I was the only one who could accomplish this task, and that was a frightening thing to consider. Combined with the size of the Colossi, it just felt right. In some ways I think SotC is an artistic examination of size in general.
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 26, 2006, 08:53:09 PM
Post by: Svevan on October 26, 2006, 08:57:41 PM
Post by: IceCold on October 26, 2006, 08:59:32 PM
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 26, 2006, 08:59:35 PM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on October 27, 2006, 01:12:33 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
For a short period of time and with a completely different aesthetic choice. Really Pro, I don't see how that matters. WW chose to communicate something akin to isolation for roughly five minutes. Does this really make it better than SotC? Nope, not at all. Stop fanboying up our boards.
Then I present to you the idea that the emptiness and isolation in SotC was intentional to accomodate the technical contraints. RE4 PS2 had to turn trees into POPSICLE STICKS to save the framerate. Imagine SotC's fluidity had it actually had significant environmental activity. ACTUALLY, here's something more logical: the world is empty ANYWAY simply to reserve enough computing resources to accomodate the Colossi themselves (and maintain playability), since inherently they ARE environments. Just one of the many factors that lead to the final art direction.
"Does this really make it better than SotC? Nope, not at all. Stop fanboying up our boards"
Where the HELL are you getting this conclusion from? I posted 1 sentence that suggests another game presents its own moment and perspective of isolation. (mentioning "colossi" as an artistic factor in my statement doesn't even MAKE SENSE in the argument). Where in that do you find an outright put-down of SotC? Where in the bloody MUSHROOM KINGDOM did I thrust WW to higher pedestal over SotC?
I'm not 100% serious around here. When did you get 110.3% sensitive? That's your first warning. I don't want to ban you.
Post by: blackfootsteps on October 27, 2006, 04:01:24 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack...
Had they filled the world with some quests and some small enemies along the way to the colossus, and perhaps some small villages, I think this game would've gone from pretty good to great or amazing.
Well the lizards and apples did provide a minor (and annoying) distaction between colossi.
Overall it was a fantastic game and once you get past the technical limitations the experience sucks you in. I think the lack of a continual musical score was suitable for the mood the game was providing. The sound of the wind playing really made me feel very alone in such an interesting varied landscape.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 07:07:41 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
For a short period of time and with a completely different aesthetic choice. Really Pro, I don't see how that matters. WW chose to communicate something akin to isolation for roughly five minutes. Does this really make it better than SotC? Nope, not at all. Stop fanboying up our boards.
Stop being a fanboy yourself and drooling over the game as an "artistic masterpiece", that is what I always hear from Sony fans. It gets quite tiring hearing how amazing it and Ico are artistically, it is almost a buzz word used amongst Sony fans in attempt to explain away the technical and gameplay problems the game obviously had (and I do think Pro has a point the land is empty because of hardware). The point is that the game is a one trick pony, and could have used more diversity, as it stands the game is "climb to Colossus weakpoint, button smash to attack, go to next one, button smash and repeat"
Post by: Svevan on October 27, 2006, 03:47:33 PM
From Pro:
Quote
Then I present to you the idea that the emptiness and isolation in SotC was intentional to accomodate the technical contraints. RE4 PS2 had to turn trees into POPSICLE STICKS to save the framerate. Imagine SotC's fluidity had it actually had significant environmental activity. ACTUALLY, here's something more logical: the world is empty ANYWAY simply to reserve enough computing resources to accomodate the Colossi themselves (and maintain playability), since inherently they ARE environments. Just one of the many factors that lead to the final art direction.
Factoring a system's strengths into art direction isn't wrong, but the isolated perspective of SotC matches the plot and themes so well that I can't put that horse before that cart. Even if the limitations of the PS2 necessitated that the world be entirely empty, it still WORKS and the system's need for a sparse overworld created an excellent aesthetic device. In this same way, RE4, like most RE games, mostly takes place in small rooms. Only occasionally do we branch out into gigantic areas, and even then we can only move through them linearly. I have never seen a world as big as SotC in any other game, even next gen, and that includes the handful of hours I've spent with Oblivion.
Quote
"Does this really make it better than SotC? Nope, not at all. Stop fanboying up our boards"
Where the HELL are you getting this conclusion from? I posted 1 sentence that suggests another game presents its own moment and perspective of isolation. (mentioning "colossi" as an artistic factor in my statement doesn't even MAKE SENSE in the argument). Where in that do you find an outright put-down of SotC? Where in the bloody MUSHROOM KINGDOM did I thrust WW to higher pedestal over SotC?
I don't understand why you would mention such a specific part of WW in direct comparison to SotC without intending to put SotC down. But if you say you meant to merely add to the conversation, I submit that my response was wholly inappropriate.
Quote
I'm not 100% serious around here. When did you get 110.3% sensitive? That's your first warning. I don't want to ban you.
I know you're not serious all the time. Hell, I love your posts. I felt like you were intruding on a good discussion (albiet lopsided since I tend to drown other people out, sorry all) with antagonistic sarcasm at the expense of an excellent, worthy game. I reacted harshly, and for that I'm greatly sorry. Shouldn't have been so sensitive and your criticism of me is valid.
And to VG, geez, sorry to get you riled too. =) But I'm no fanboy - I just bought a PS2 two weeks ago. A beautiful game is a beautiful game, be it on the PS2, Xbox, or GC. I got over that a while ago, but I don't feel everyone here has.
Post by: IceCold on October 27, 2006, 04:06:36 PM
QuoteI find it quite funny that you use the word "our" when describing the forums, first implying that Pro isn't a part of them while you are..
Originally posted by: Svevan
For a short period of time and with a completely different aesthetic choice. Really Pro, I don't see how that matters. WW chose to communicate something akin to isolation for roughly five minutes. Does this really make it better than SotC? Nope, not at all. Stop fanboying up our boards.
Post by: Smoke39 on October 27, 2006, 04:48:21 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteI find it quite funny that you use the word "our" when describing the forums, first implying that Pro isn't a part of them while you are..
Originally posted by: Svevan
For a short period of time and with a completely different aesthetic choice. Really Pro, I don't see how that matters. WW chose to communicate something akin to isolation for roughly five minutes. Does this really make it better than SotC? Nope, not at all. Stop fanboying up our boards.
Not really. If both you and I own something and I'm addressing you, how would I say that that thing belongs to both of us if not by calling it "ours"?
Post by: Kairon on October 27, 2006, 06:05:56 PM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 27, 2006, 07:34:35 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I need to raid a PS2-owning friend's room and see what's so special about this game in that it's become more annoying to Nintendo fanboys than Metal Gear Solid.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
It doesn't annoy me, I just feel it is overrated same with the MGS but even at that I would still give it an 8/10 since it does have some charm. The visuals really hurt it for me because I truly dislike poor framerates, they ruin my interaction with a game (which is why I really disliked PD for N64).
Post by: Nick DiMola on October 28, 2006, 06:58:24 AM
Ouch no Perfect Dark love from VG. Maybe I'm a fanboy but Perfect Dark is one of my favorite games of all time. Hell I bought a 360 just to play PD0(which wasn't 1/10 as awesome as PD).
Anyway SotC was a good game, but I felt it could've been more. I thought Ico was better, but both are just kind of bland. Nothing is going on to convey how epic everything is. A game that tries to be all cinematic needs a cinematic touch like engaging music, and some other stuff moving in the world other than your damn character (lizards and crows don't count). I always felt riding Epona through Hyrule in OoT was epic and it was just the cool music and the sound effects of Epona and Link. But I am a Nintendo fan for a reason, and I'm sure some of that fanboy in me tends to cloud my judgement a tad bit when observing other games.
Post by: KDR_11k on October 28, 2006, 10:51:24 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 12:12:41 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
The only thing I remember about OOT and plains is constantly rolling for minutes at a time just to get across that big field of boredom.
Really? Personally I loved the wide open field, especially at night which was kind of creepy with those things coming out of the ground. I also remember how cool it was to see those big twirling monsters flying around.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on October 28, 2006, 12:16:10 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
"The visuals really hurt it for me because I truly dislike poor framerates, they ruin my interaction with a game (which is why I really disliked PD for N64). "
Ouch no Perfect Dark love from VG. Maybe I'm a fanboy but Perfect Dark is one of my favorite games of all time. Hell I bought a 360 just to play PD0(which wasn't 1/10 as awesome as PD).
Anyway SotC was a good game, but I felt it could've been more. I thought Ico was better, but both are just kind of bland. Nothing is going on to convey how epic everything is. A game that tries to be all cinematic needs a cinematic touch like engaging music, and some other stuff moving in the world other than your damn character (lizards and crows don't count). I always felt riding Epona through Hyrule in OoT was epic and it was just the cool music and the sound effects of Epona and Link. But I am a Nintendo fan for a reason, and I'm sure some of that fanboy in me tends to cloud my judgement a tad bit when observing other games.
My thoughts exactly on SotC, it never felt epic . Reasons for me disliking Ico were a bit because of my own personal taste, I really do not like having to protect a character in games and find it tedious, not to mention the repetitive shadow creatures!
Post by: SixthAngel on October 29, 2006, 12:02:53 PM
Post by: SixthAngel on November 13, 2006, 06:49:59 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on November 13, 2006, 11:59:05 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: SixthAngel
After beating the game and reading everyones impressions here I am surprised that when I played I had no framerate problems. It ran smooth all the time. I looked around and people say that old ps2s run with a worse framerate. Is this true and if so what exactly did Sony change in later models to improve it?
That is weird, I have the PS2 slim and encountered some bad framerate problems. My only guess is that DVD reading problems could cause problems, not sure though. It could just be the hardware used in it.
Post by: Bill Aurion on November 13, 2006, 04:45:20 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on May 12, 2007, 04:51:37 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 12, 2007, 07:42:40 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Hahaha bump from the pits! This is an interesting game that is really boiled down to its very essences. Nothing extraneous here.
Its essence being a game to big for its hardware britches that is hampered by some of the most inconsistent framerates around.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 12, 2007, 08:53:48 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 12, 2007, 09:01:04 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: ShyGuy
Didn't seem too terrible to me. The colossuses (colussi?) were supposed to be really slow right?
You didn't know the jerky framerate? I'll admit the game had great art design, but the framerate ruined it for me, I wish they would have waited and released it on PS3.
Post by: darknight06 on May 14, 2007, 12:00:24 PM
Post by: ShyGuy on May 14, 2007, 12:04:09 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on May 14, 2007, 12:07:14 PM
That said, I've never played the game, but it looks like a great idea, but I tend to make Nintendo's games my top priority in most cases, and I don't even get to all of them, so I didn't get enough time for the game.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 14, 2007, 08:45:55 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
If the screen has a relatively slow framerate, that's fine with me, so long as it is with good reason. That's a pretty pansy of a reason to avoid a game in most cases, and always seemed like a shabby excuse to complain to me.
That said, I've never played the game, but it looks like a great idea, but I tend to make Nintendo's games my top priority in most cases, and I don't even get to all of them, so I didn't get enough time for the game.
I've always hated poor, inconsistent framerates I would much rather have a game with less visual kick with a steady framerate then one overly ambitious with a poor framerate. It ruins the fun for me, not to mention it gives me a headache.
Post by: Svevan on May 17, 2007, 08:49:20 AM
I submit that a game is more than the sum of its parts. I do not snub my nose at bad graphics or story, why should I therefore snub middling controls or framerates? If any of these elements are so terrible as to detract from the experience, then the game may be flawed. I don't believe that's true in SotC at all. The controls in SotC are beautifully difficult to master, turning the colossi into terrible mountains. (I've maintained for years that the bad controls in Resident Evil games prior to number 4 were brilliant, and RE4's new controls aren't that much better. Bad control is a part of the aesthetic.)
If I believed that every part of a game must be good, that is, when I played a game I honestly said "These graphics are good, the controls are good, the gameplay is good, the sound is good, ergo, this game is good" then I am not looking at the game at all. I have not asked why the game exists, what its purpose is, what I am supposed to gain from it. If I ask this I may find that the game is intended not to be simple but complicated, not fluid but scary. I may also see that the game's story and presentation are ten times more important than its length or depth. Tough pills for Nintendo fans to swallow, I know.
As for framerates, I don't know how anyone who ever played the N64 could ever criticize framerates and call them a deal-breaker. Banjo-Tooie (and sometimes Kazooie), Perfect Dark, Vigilante 8, Blast Corps, Turok 1 and 2, Winback, Body Harvest, Castlevania, Bad Fur Day, Jet Force Gemini, Pilotwings, Starfox 64, even the two Zelda games! Each one of these had framerate issues, some worse than others (Nintendo was pretty good at avoiding them, others were not). System limitations did not keep these games from being beautiful and compelling, even though they were at times very difficult to play. I propose that SotC has better framerates than any of the Rare games (minus Blast Corps) I have mentioned.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 17, 2007, 09:48:31 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 17, 2007, 10:04:19 AM
Once we jumped to a whole new generation of technology (ps2 era), the obvious shortcomings of fluidity and poly output should have been RESOLVED, provided a developer puts a sufficient amount of work into tech-resource budgeting (when the game asks for more than the hardware can safely accomodate, we get a performance hit -- all too common).
Allowing yesterday's simple performance problems be present on today's platforms is inexcusable. It's like receiving a written report that hasn't been spell-checked and doesn't satisfy the word count. Being forgiving of these shortcomings in an age that touted "unparalleled" and "superior" technology is ironic and SAD.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 17, 2007, 10:17:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
Those N64 games were arguably top-of-the-line for their time, for their hardware, venturing into infant tech territory (3D as opposed to 2D; 2D had little problem displaying at constant 30fps or 60fps).
Once we jumped to a whole new generation of technology (ps2 era), the obvious shortcomings of fluidity and poly output should have been RESOLVED, provided a developer puts a sufficient amount of work into tech-resource budgeting (when the game asks for more than the hardware can safely accomodate, we get a performance hit -- all too common).
Allowing yesterday's simple performance problems be present on today's platforms is inexcusable. It's like receiving a written report that hasn't been spell-checked and doesn't satisfy the word count. Being forgiving of these shortcomings in an age that touted "unparalleled" and "superior" technology is ironic and SAD.
I agree 100% with that. A game like Shadow of Colossus felt like the developer was trying to do too much with the hardware, and not enough balancing. There is no doubt in my mind that they could have sacrificed some of the polygons, and had the same, if not greater impact. God of War comes to mind when i think of a visuals that look quite good but also have a fairly steady framerate.
Post by: that Baby guy on May 17, 2007, 10:43:18 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 17, 2007, 10:55:41 AM
For a reflex-intensive gamer like myself, poor framerates are completely undesirable since they adversely affect timing and control.
Post by: that Baby guy on May 17, 2007, 10:56:50 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 17, 2007, 11:00:09 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Remember Super Smash Bros?
Yeah that a pretty smooth framerate. Your point?
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on May 17, 2007, 11:05:00 AM
Post by: that Baby guy on May 17, 2007, 11:25:07 AM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on May 17, 2007, 12:49:26 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Uhh, go back and play a four player battle in Saffron City, and tell me again that it has a smooth framerate.
Go back and play stages other than Saffron City (I don't even recall that being all that bad). Doesn't matter though because Melee is far superior.
Post by: that Baby guy on May 17, 2007, 12:53:36 PM
Post by: IceCold on May 17, 2007, 09:02:38 PM
QuoteWhy would it be a tough pill to swallow? It's your opinion.. you're talking as if it's the only truth.
I may also see that the game's story and presentation are ten times more important than its length or depth. Tough pills for Nintendo fans to swallow, I know.
Post by: Svevan on May 18, 2007, 08:09:19 AM
QuoteI believe some games have stronger story than gameplay. I believe some very valid and beautiful games have beautiful presentations but limited playing time. I also believe that pure, unadulterated "gameplay" is not the only goal of video games. It is a tough pill to swallow because Nintendo gamers aren't used to it and don't like it, and are very often ignorant to its value (Final Fantasy games are a great example, but let's include Metal Gear Solid).
Originally posted by: IceColdQuoteWhy would it be a tough pill to swallow? It's your opinion.. you're talking as if it's the only truth.
I may also see that the game's story and presentation are ten times more important than its length or depth. Tough pills for Nintendo fans to swallow, I know.
Instead of questioning my right to assert my opinion with confidence, why not disprove what I've said? Everyone attempts to make objective statements about truth every day (also called opinions). I wear my opinions loudly, waiting for someone to prove me wrong with strong facts and inferences instead of demeaning my opinion as "mine only," a bone thrown to relativistic philosophy. Your statement makes a broad assumption as well: you make it seem as though there is more than one truth.
Post by: ShyGuy on May 18, 2007, 08:21:12 AM
I'll make a gross generalization here. There are two major "threads" for the lack of a better term, in games. Digital Sport and Interactive movie. Games like Pong, CounterStrike, and Wii Sports are digital sports. They are primarily concerned with the mechanics of play and competition. Interactive Movies are Zork, Shadow of the Colossus and Zelda. They are primarily concerned with the immersive experience and story.
Both schools are valid and cross over each over repeatedly. But they each appeal to a different human need.
