Post by: WindyMan on July 17, 2007, 04:07:00 PM
Post by: Mashiro on July 17, 2007, 05:12:31 PM
Post by: MarioAllStar on July 17, 2007, 05:49:42 PM
Post by: Mashiro on July 17, 2007, 05:56:35 PM
"This . . . isn't really happening!!!!" One of my favorite video game lines haha.
It combat elements would work extremely well with the Wii controller as well . . . maybe one day we will get a sequel.
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on July 17, 2007, 05:56:46 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on July 17, 2007, 06:23:01 PM
Post by: denjet78 on July 17, 2007, 06:32:15 PM
Then he says that sure he'd like to make a Wii game, even though their and Nintendo's philosophies don't play well together and the Wii is far too under powered to be able to do anything that they'd ever actually want to do in regards to a game and blah, blah, blah. I'm going to jerk this interviewer off just so I can get in a sales pitch for my upcoming game that's only coming to a competing platform.
If you can't tell by now I didn't enjoy this much. I found the interview to be trite and insulting. Dennis can bite me for all I care. He's just another graphics whore now.
Lesson #1: If you're trying to reach out to a new audience it's not a very smart thing to insult them.
Post by: BwrJim! on July 17, 2007, 07:48:53 PM
So how many times did you ask that one question? (adding the reiterations of course)
Post by: Alfonse on July 17, 2007, 08:33:58 PM
Quote
Lesson #1: If you're trying to reach out to a new audience it's not a very smart thing to insult them.
He's not reaching out to a new audience; if he were trying that, he'd be making a Wii game.
Personally, the fact that Dyack can't seem to make a game anywhere close to on-time (unless it's already been made. See MGS) is a scathing indictment. What do game developers do? They make games. They don't spend 8 years making one game. Even StarCraft 2 hasn't been in actual development for that long; Blizzard only started developing it a few years back. And nothing that Dyack makes can stand up to SC2 in terms of game design, so I don't see where the time is going.
I mean, Eternal Darkness was a great game. But did it really need something like 4 years? Twilight Princess didn't take that long to develop, and they had to bootstrap an entirely new control scheme onto it towards the end. And TP is a much larger and more dynamic game than ED.
Dyack is a hack. Maybe a talented one, but he's been making games for 15 years and he's only shipped like 4. And one of those was just a port. In half that time (perhaps less!), Retro Studios will have built a Metroid Prime engine, and shipped 3 games on it, each with steadily improving visual quality to it. And each of similar if not superior quality to anything Dyack has done.
What does that tell you about how much we should care what Dyack thinks?
Post by: Mashiro on July 17, 2007, 08:48:25 PM
Maybe that will be released on Wii? Or whatever the next Nintendo system will be called (~_^). I do have to agree with alfonse on the ridiculously long development cycles. Another fun fact: Too Human was originally shown at E3 1999! That's near Duke Nukem Forever territory lol.
Post by: Arbok on July 17, 2007, 09:13:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78
The interview was blah... He basically tap danced around answering any of the questions regarding their split with Nintendo, giving mostly non answers. Then he slams Wii for being weaker than the 360 and incapable of doing the things that they want to do. Wow... wasn't the original XBox more powerful than the GC too? And isn't the PS3 more powerful than the 360? Apparently they don't want the absolute most powerful hardware, even though he basically says that over and over again as the reason for moving Too Human to the 360. I'm sure that decision wasn't based on all the money MS threw at them at all. He seems to only like the middle power hardware. Not the weakest but not the best.
I'm sure it was also based on the perception by many that the 360 would continue the trend of its predecessor and outsell the next Nintendo console, making developing for it more appealing... at least until the Wii was actually released and started flying off the shelves. Even though he never coped up to that fact in the interview.
Anyway, I really see Dyack as a great visionary, with solid, original ideas and grand plans for his titles... which sadly are just more than his company can handle given their track record, which could be due to a number of things like size, resources, etc.
Post by: King of Twitch on July 17, 2007, 09:27:30 PM
They started on TS after ED came out in 02. Why would they have known about the inferior, NON-REVOLUTIONARY Wii hardware so early (and why didn't they jump ship sooner?). Second as denjet said, if the Cube hardware was competent enough for Too Human to allow SK to be bought out by nintendo (early may or april 2000), why didn't they just work on that after ED was done (or after TS)? Why did they "decide" to do a port instead of their own baby which they KNEW would take a long time? Good work pgc you got my blood boiling by the first page.
Post by: Kairon on July 17, 2007, 09:38:59 PM
Post by: KnowsNothing on July 18, 2007, 12:50:35 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 18, 2007, 02:50:11 AM
So Johnny did you actually get to play Too Human?
Post by: Nephilim on July 18, 2007, 03:01:18 AM
as movies are tested infront of groups of people well before release, and are editted/cut baised on reactions
much like denis said he did
its not just simply, show media then regret not making changes
but I enjoyed the interview, but I dont think I learnt anything
Post by: cubist on July 18, 2007, 04:06:13 AM
That was an excellent interview. I spent my first hour of work reading it...talk about making the time pass. I've always been a huge SK fan...and I have a lot of respect for Denis Dyack.
Post by: UltimatePartyBear on July 18, 2007, 05:23:15 AM
Post by: Pale on July 18, 2007, 06:06:42 AM
Post by: Ian Sane on July 18, 2007, 06:10:11 AM
Sounds like SK left Nintendo because of all the non-gamer stuff. That sucks. I don't think SK is the best developer ever or anything but it's better to have them working on a Nintendo console then having them not. They're talented and having a talented developer on board is a good thing. But then I don't like how Nintendo has lost Rare, SK and Factor 5 all in such a short period of time. I'm sure someone will point out that Rare sucks now or whatever but I liked what these devs brought to Nintendo's lineup.
I sympathize with Denis as it seems Nintendo and SK were in synch and then Nintendo changed. As a Nintendo fan that's largely how I've felt as well and as a developer that must be quite frustrating. You're content working with a company and one day they tell you this plan they have that involves games that are pretty much the opposite of the types of games you make. Oh yeah and they tell you that the types of games you make have contributed to scaring these customers away because they're too complicated. SK might as well have been laid off.
Post by: Plugabugz on July 18, 2007, 06:18:36 AM
He respects Nintendo and their talents - that's clear. He wanted to make a big huge epic game in scale, but it seems like he's not sure how to keep a budget attached to that epic scale. Nintendo don't want to spend massively huge on games (several AAA's yes, one AAAAAAAA no), and then have them hanging around moving forward slowly and jumping several platforms, hence taking yet more time and moneh to re-tool. That what i think about why they split.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 18, 2007, 06:59:36 AM
Like Super Mario Galaxy, and Super Smash Brothers Brawl, and Metroid Prime Corruption, and Battalion Wars, and Mario Kart, and.............Oh wait, I guess Wii Fit existing on Ninty's plate sorta makes Nintendo this "evil entity" that only makes non-games, am I right?
I love your non-arguments, Ian...Sorta like that time that Ninty revealed that huge list of 20-30 new DS games, yet all you could see was Mario Basketball, ONE game while being blind to all the rest...It's quite sad, really...
Post by: Deguello on July 18, 2007, 07:03:04 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 18, 2007, 07:12:22 AM
As for what he said, in regards to the Wii not being "epic" enough, it's BS.
Last I checked, there were plenty of "epic" games LONG before the Wii, long before this generation or the last. Most people won't consider FF6 any less "epic" because the storyline is excellent and that's what lent the game its epic feel.
And I keep saying it: Nintendo moving into "non-games" means that 3rd parties have THAT much more room to breathe when it comes to releasing gamer games.
There was incessant whining about Nintendo's games smothering those of 3rd parties and now Nintendo has almost completely left that venue open. Why is the whining still happening?
Post by: Ian Sane on July 18, 2007, 07:15:15 AM
And did Denis not say that part of the reason they left was because the two companies don't see eye-to-eye anymore? Ever had a relationship of any sort fall apart because the other party changed? It sucks and even if you support Nintendo's current strategy I think it makes sense to assume that was frustrating for SK.
Post by: Svevan on July 18, 2007, 07:21:20 AM
Let's consider the changes Phantom Hourglass brings to the Zelda formula, or the constant debate about how hard Super Mario Galaxy should be. Even with these "hardcore" titles, Nintendo is a different company now, and these supposed "gamer" games are different too because of their shift in design philosophy. Even if Nintendo isn't making all the non-gamer games themselves, they're encouraging them to exist on their system via Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Brain Age, Nintendogs, Wario Ware, and their Blue Ocean marketing campaign. And saying Mario Kart counts as a hardcore franchise is disingenuous: Mario Kart is the safest bet in the history of video games, and from the looks of it, its going to offer little innovation (but who knows? More to be revealed, perhaps).
I can see what Denis is saying in terms of graphics. I don't care how good Metroid 3 looks, it doesn't look as good as BioShock or Halo 3. All three are comparable in terms of immersion (foreign setting, rules that must be intuited through the environment, etc), and graphics play a huge part of total immersion in a foreign world. It could be that all of SK's previous projects are just warm ups to an amazing game with a cinematic quality and a truly revolutionary game design. Nothing they've created so far convinces me of that, but it is possible. Having a system with a lot of power is beneficial, and I honestly do think Nintendo's GameCube 1.5 will come back to bite them eventually. Who cares if the controller is perfect for first person shooters, no one wants to make them on such weak hardware. Retro can make a first person adventure on the Wii look great, but that game has very little in common with the mainstream FPS on the 360, which sell more.
Graphics matter. For whatever reason, Nintendo and its fans thought so too back in the GameCube AND N64 age. Now they don't, because Nintendo says they don't. I call bullshit on that.
Post by: vudu on July 18, 2007, 07:22:28 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: PartyBear
It's no wonder he can't finish Too Human. The man can't even finish a sentence.
I LOL'd.Here's the first ever image from my Photobucket account.
Jonny, was this the interview you wanted to turn into a podcast?
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 18, 2007, 08:09:56 AM
So, uh, you're saying Mario Kart is a non-game? Aha...ha...
"Graphics matter. For whatever reason, Nintendo and its fans thought so too back in the GameCube AND N64 age. Now they don't, because Nintendo says they don't. I call bullshit on that. "
Let's play this from the other angle...Sony fans said graphics didn't matter last generation, but now they do?
And do you think it's by merely COINCEDENCE that the most popular system in each generation has the weakest graphics? People...don't...care...
Post by: Ceric on July 18, 2007, 09:01:29 AM
SK wanted to make Epic games that graphically wowed regardless of console. Nintendo wanted to focus on innovative controls and smaller games that were less threatening to the masses with low focus on being on the technological edge. They both talked, figured out that for SK's current projects it just wasn't going to work out, and got a divorce. At that point SK received a call from MS now that they were platform shopping to put it on their console which probably meant money, free dev kits, and between the PS3 and the 360 they had the machine that is suppose to be easier to work with. It was a win all around for them because the games they are making are the games MS wants.
He goes on to say that if he was approached with a project that he felt would benefit more from what the Wii has to offer then the other platforms he develop it in a heartbeat. There wasn't any indication of any ill will or anything.
From that interview I would not be surprised at all if they were to make a game for the Wii or do another upgraded port.
Post by: Kairon on July 18, 2007, 09:34:03 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Plugabugz
He respects Nintendo and their talents - that's clear. He wanted to make a big huge epic game in scale, but it seems like he's not sure how to keep a budget attached to that epic scale. Nintendo don't want to spend massively huge on games (several AAA's yes, one AAAAAAAA no), and then have them hanging around moving forward slowly and jumping several platforms, hence taking yet more time and moneh to re-tool. That what i think about why they split.
I believe that the same schism in philosophies that happened between Rare and Nintendo happened with SK and Nintendo. But I think that Plugabugz here has the REAL answer. Silicon Knights wanted to make a big budget game. They wanted to make a game to rival movies. They wanted to be the be all and end all of epic experiences. And they've wanted this for a long time.
Nintendo didn't want to give them the, probably large, budget that they would've needed to pursue that. Where do you go when Nintendo decides you're too expensive to keep supporting? Microsoft.
Post by: Ian Sane on July 18, 2007, 09:57:43 AM
Why does everyone forget about the 16-bit generation? The SNES won. It spanked the Genesis in graphics and sound. And both consoles spanked the T-16 which had the weakest hardware of all of them. I think the weakest hardware often (not always) being the most popular is a coincedence or really just little differences in hardware don't matter provided the hardware is "good enough". However something like a major missing feature or something like the N64 using cartridges and the Saturn originally being designed as the perfect 2D machine right before 2D took over or huge price differences (and in the case of portables battery life) can make a big difference. It's like there's an idea in everyone's head of what they ideally want out of a videogame system and whatever console comes the closest to the largest amount of people's idea is the most popular.
Post by: Kairon on July 18, 2007, 10:01:08 AM
Post by: Smash_Brother on July 18, 2007, 01:35:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Ian Sane Why does everyone forget about the 16-bit generation? The SNES won. It spanked the Genesis in graphics and sound.
Uhh, SegaCD? Better graphics, and CERTAINLY better sound.
And last I remember, the SNES and Genesis had no notable graphical diversity.
Post by: that Baby guy on July 18, 2007, 01:51:18 PM
Though Kairon's right. I find it just plain ignorant when a dev says the Wii isn't powerful enough. If it isn't, then that must mean that all their work before the 360 is just a cheap cop-out for cash. Last generation reached a saturation point where machines were powerful enough that graphics didn't get in the way of telling a story. Whether devs admit this or not, it's true. We've reached the point where going a little beyond last gen's graphics, everything costs too much and takes too much time. Games shouldn't cost $60 to be profitable anymore. More people buy these things than ever, so prices shouldn't got up as demand is rising. If we keep focusing on making the prettiest game possible, the industry is up for a huge belly-flop, and people won't stand for paying that much.
Heck, the PS3 shows us that one, too.
Post by: Arbok on July 18, 2007, 01:52:46 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Smash_Brother
And last I remember, the SNES and Genesis had no notable graphical diversity.
I have to step in here and disagree. Let's recall that the SNES and the Genesis were very close in sales most of their lives. The turning point was actually due to graphics, with the game Donkey Kong Country. That game was amazing of course, I'm a large defender of it from people who say otherwise, but it was turning heads because of the graphics... hell, it was that game that convinced me to buy an SNES after being Genesis exclusive up to that point. It took awhile for Sega to counter with Vectorman, and by then it was too late.
DKC is kind of an anomaly, though, as rarely have graphics taken a huge leap in a generation like they did then. In fact the only other example I can think of where graphics sold a game in large, large quantities and went toward winning a generation was Final Fantasy 7, which in that case was due to FMVs.
So it can happen, although I also think it's quite clear that it's not the main factor, or even a big one, in console dominance in the market. With the advent of FMVs, it's really hard to stand out with graphics alone too... and there is just way too much "wait, is that actually in game?" type of questions which in the end kind of dull the whole draw in today's market, as it's hard to tell what's real and what's not until getting your hands on it.
Post by: Arbok on July 18, 2007, 01:53:37 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on July 18, 2007, 01:57:26 PM
Post by: denjet78 on July 18, 2007, 04:26:43 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
I can see what Denis is saying in terms of graphics. I don't care how good Metroid 3 looks, it doesn't look as good as BioShock or Halo 3. All three are comparable in terms of immersion (foreign setting, rules that must be intuited through the environment, etc), and graphics play a huge part of total immersion in a foreign world. It could be that all of SK's previous projects are just warm ups to an amazing game with a cinematic quality and a truly revolutionary game design. Nothing they've created so far convinces me of that, but it is possible. Having a system with a lot of power is beneficial, and I honestly do think Nintendo's GameCube 1.5 will come back to bite them eventually. Who cares if the controller is perfect for first person shooters, no one wants to make them on such weak hardware. Retro can make a first person adventure on the Wii look great, but that game has very little in common with the mainstream FPS on the 360, which sell more.
In the end, power means nothing. It's what you do with it that matters. And do you even read what you type? You don't care what MP3 looks like because it doesn't look as good as some games on the 360? Considering I've seen Halo 2 and 3 in motion side by side and almost can't see much in the way of graphical difference between the two I'm going to call shenanigans. Face it, graphics this gen are a joke compared to last. The hardware requirements to get anything good running are insane. Would you rather these companies go broke trying to keep you happy visually? Sony and MS apparently would.
And Wii isn't going to come back to bite Nintendo in the end at all. 360 looked like crap when it was revealed. XBox 1.5 anyone? That's what EVERYONE was calling it. A GC 1.5 should be more than adequate in that regard. If people were willing to put up with crap graphics out of the 360, they'll put up with them on the Wii. And it's not like people haven't done that before. PS2 and it's GOD AWFUL jaggies won last generation by a land slide. As did the PSX before that with it's EYE BLEEDINGLY horrible graphics. To this day I still cannot fathom how anyone in their right mind would choose that ugliness over the N64. I can feel my eyes starting to bleed just from thinking about it.
Besides, as has been mentioned before. Epic games existed long before the Wii. If it's all about power then that means that every game before now, and even every game today as we haven't reached the pinnacle of graphics, should never have been made. In fact, I'll go so far as to say that SK shouldn't be making games at all. Especially not Too Human which apparently can only be realized by the best of the best of the best of which neither the Wii or the 360 or even the PS3 are. They should just wait until technology reaches the point of perfection, which is never. And with the short sighted and inflammatory comments they've made about the Wii I'd be more than happy if they waited even longer.
Post by: Urkel on July 18, 2007, 04:53:21 PM
Quote
Well, I think that the mini-game is where the Wii excels, quite frankly, and I think easy access… mumble mumble mumble....
ETERNAL DARKNESS: PARTY MADNESS CONFIRMED FOR WII!!!!!
Seriously though, that sounds like a veiled insult more than anything else. That's the kind of statement Sony execs make about Nintendo in interviews.
"Oh ho! I think the Wii is a great system for toddlers. Did you get that? LOL! I'm not complimenting them at all!"
I also find it interesting that Dyack in no way explicitly states that Nintendo would not fund Too Human. He just rambles about Miyamoto saying something about smaller games. (Good job pressing him on the issue. I el oh elled.)
Post by: Alfonse on July 19, 2007, 12:15:45 PM
Know what, Dyack? Maybe if you could cobble together some real developers, you could actually finish a game. I don't see BioWare saying that U3 is inadequate. And U3 has already shipped a game, which is a lot more than anyone can say about you.
God, he is such a poser.
Quote
The turning point was actually due to graphics
Actually, no. The turning point of the Genesis/SNES race was Sega going nuts with SegaCD and 32X. Not that DKC didn't hurt them too, but it was more like something bad that happened at just the wrong moment for Sega.
Quote
In the end, power means nothing.
In terms of making money, sure. In terms of making great videogame art?
It's the one thing I still have some respect for with regard to Dyack. I don't agree with his Graphics Uberalles philosophy, but he has a vision for his games and he wants to get it across, regardless of whether it makes money or is even popular.
Yes, FF6 is a great game. So is FF4. But wouldn't you like to have FF4 with FF6's graphics? Wouldn't you like to have FF4 with FF7's graphics (Giant of Bab-il in 3D FTW!)? Would FF4 with the better graphics not be a better game?
If your goal is to make money, Nintendo's strategy makes perfect sense: go after the biggest market and don't look back. But if your goal is to make the best videogames, in all respects, that you can, you have to admit that games like Wii Sports, Rayman, etc are not really the kind of intense videogame experiences that a seasoned gamer would want. And while yes, there are still the Mario Galaxies and Metroids Prime (that I will be buying on release day), these games could have been made better on consoles with more hardware.
They may be the best that Wii can do, but they're still limited by what Wii can do. And there are alternatives to Wii.
Post by: Kairon on July 19, 2007, 12:31:20 PM
I love me some graphics, but if all I wanted was pretty pictures, then I'd go elsewhere. Games need good graphics only insofar as they support the interactive experience and gameplay that is its entire reason d'etre. Sometimes that requires bloom lighting. Most of the time it doesn't.
Post by: Bill Aurion on July 19, 2007, 12:32:35 PM
Post by: that Baby guy on July 19, 2007, 12:59:29 PM
FF6 is one of the best RPGs I have ever played. That isn't despite the artwork involved. That's because of everything the game is. The character sprites? They invoke amazing depth of emotions, even through simplicity. The enemies? They look like beautiful portraits. Amazing portraits. The script? Unique. It is one of several things that define the brilliance of the story, characters, and game itself.
Now, in my opinion, FF6 is only second to Chrono Trigger, though it may be even with other games at telling a story. See, here's the thing. Developers used to see that they had limits with power. They saw that there was only so much that could be done. How did they respond? Look at the entire final battle in FF6. Isn't that amazing? Isn't that remarkable? The devs didn't have to worry about fancy polygons, flickering, and other things like that. They just pushed the game to be the best it could be. At this point in time, however, games look pretty for the sake of looking pretty. They don't make a statement. They don't fit the style and mood of the game. I don't think a masterpiece like FF6 could be created at this point in time, given the current standards of the industry. There are far to many distractions. Costs are far too high.
Now, do I think a remake of an older masterpiece game can be better than the original? Yes, I do. But that's because the developers of the original game already made their game great. The creators of the remake only have to worry about spending time making the game up to today's graphical standards.
I think the games of today can be great, too, but it will be much harder for one to be. Like I said, there are too many distractions. To many things out there for enough features to b amazing.
Nintendo understood that the industry was dying. It died back in the '80's, too. For you to criticize a plan to allow the industry to spread game media to far more people than ever before at a single time, just shows you don't get it. Super Mario Galaxy will be a top game this generation, on any platform. Hardcore and casual gamers alike will love it. Mario Galaxy won't need a console with better hardware to be a better game than most others. Neither will Metroid Prime 3. Don't you realize that games you've played all your life, enjoyed all your life, weren't great because of the hardware? The best games aren't amazing because of graphics. Pac-man, then Ms. Pac-Man, then Pac-Man Vs. aren't amazing graphically. They never, ever, ever were. Super Mario Bros.? Contra looked better than that then. So did several arcade games at the time. Stunt Race FX? Terrible game, remarkable graphics for the time.
The thing you, as well as others don't understand is that the greatest games are the ones that don't need the highest horsepower to be great. These games are great so long as there is a system powerful enough to support whatever engine is required for the game to be played.
In the end, power means nothing. Graphics mean nothing. Detail is everything. Style is everything. Gameplay is everything. People still haven't realized this. If graphics were really that important, wouldn't we hate old games. Is there a point where we decide a game is too ugly to play? Do I look back and say, "Well, gee, If they had fit more pixels into Mario's hat and 'stache, I'd have enjoyed Donkey Kong better?"
No. Never. Besides, aside from the cutscenes, FF7 was a remarkably ugly game. Better hardware did not make a better game. It never has, it never will. The best games are the best games despite hardware, not because of them.
My post was to Alfonse, BTW.
Post by: denjet78 on July 19, 2007, 01:41:17 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
*** Insert Perfect Response Here ***
I'm so glad I decided to read ahead before I tried replying to Alfonse.
You hit the nail so perfectly on the head I can't think of anything to add.
Great games have never been about the hardware. They're great because they're great. And most of them could still be great on almost any other platform.
Post by: Arbok on July 19, 2007, 02:03:34 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: AlfonseActually, no. The turning point of the Genesis/SNES race was Sega going nuts with SegaCD and 32X. Not that DKC didn't hurt them too, but it was more like something bad that happened at just the wrong moment for Sega.
The add ons were a awful idea that confused the market... but let's not forget that Sega CD sold about 6 million units. Some did believe the hype. When Donkey Kong Country came along, it really shattered everything, though, especially all of Sega's focus on these add ons being needed to bring graphics to the next step, as here Nintendo (or Rare, in this case) was able to do it with a system right out of the box.
Donkey Kong Country was also a phenomenal sales success, being the second best selling game on the SNES and one of the twenty best selling games of all time. I really think it deserves its due for its impact in the 16 bit generation.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 19, 2007, 02:31:37 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
At least Ian is concerned with continuing the conversation, Deg, and half of his posts are not put-downs and smear campaigns on his least favorite forum poster.
Let's consider the changes Phantom Hourglass brings to the Zelda formula, or the constant debate about how hard Super Mario Galaxy should be. Even with these "hardcore" titles, Nintendo is a different company now, and these supposed "gamer" games are different too because of their shift in design philosophy. Even if Nintendo isn't making all the non-gamer games themselves, they're encouraging them to exist on their system via Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Brain Age, Nintendogs, Wario Ware, and their Blue Ocean marketing campaign. And saying Mario Kart counts as a hardcore franchise is disingenuous: Mario Kart is the safest bet in the history of video games, and from the looks of it, its going to offer little innovation (but who knows? More to be revealed, perhaps).
I can see what Denis is saying in terms of graphics. I don't care how good Metroid 3 looks, it doesn't look as good as BioShock or Halo 3. All three are comparable in terms of immersion (foreign setting, rules that must be intuited through the environment, etc), and graphics play a huge part of total immersion in a foreign world. It could be that all of SK's previous projects are just warm ups to an amazing game with a cinematic quality and a truly revolutionary game design. Nothing they've created so far convinces me of that, but it is possible. Having a system with a lot of power is beneficial, and I honestly do think Nintendo's GameCube 1.5 will come back to bite them eventually. Who cares if the controller is perfect for first person shooters, no one wants to make them on such weak hardware. Retro can make a first person adventure on the Wii look great, but that game has very little in common with the mainstream FPS on the 360, which sell more.
Graphics matter. For whatever reason, Nintendo and its fans thought so too back in the GameCube AND N64 age. Now they don't, because Nintendo says they don't. I call bullshit on that.
Art style matters far more then visuals, and for some reason I don't recall Nintendo fans ever being graphic whores. Heck some of their favorite games are not the most visually appealing. Honestly though, I don't think anyone would ever argue graphics don't matter at all, because they do, but it is what is done IN COMBINATION with the graphics that matter most, it always has been that way. Mario Galaxy looks gorgeous, and guess what, not all that is because of the graphical horsepower it appears to be outputting, but is mainly because of the art style in the game.
Not sure what you are talking about regarding PH or Nintendo's other traditional franchises. From what I've seen of Mario Galaxy it appears to be quite traditional yet quite revolutionary. Metroid Prime 3 looks like it has similar gameplay to previous Metroid games. Perhaps you can explain that further, because I am not getting your point how they are different. So what if there are discussions about the challenge of Mario Galaxy? Those discussions go on all the time!
Post by: mantidor on July 19, 2007, 03:35:24 PM
I agree a lot with Dyak's view in the parallels with the movie industry, but I think he is still seeing things very limited, and its certainly hard, because we've got movies for a whole century, and they are the paradigm of technology becoming art, so we often only look at cutscenes, story and graphics, with little thought into the input device.
And thats where Nintendo stepped in, unfortunately its also hard to see, because they implemented a remote and a touchscreen not because they think games are art (and I believe they have already stated that) but because they want to reach as much people as possible because they like money. And thats also the reason behind the console being underpowered, they are NOT selling the console at a loss, we know that, we play that argument every chance we got, it has nothing to do with the games themselves, money is the only excuse, if Nintendo really thought of games with the passion we do, the console would be more powerful, is that simple. Any developer passionate about games as an art rather than a product would prefer better graphics and more power, period, even if the "don't win as much money" from the console.
So I see Dyack's point, but I think his decision was wrong, because the graphic's flaw is compensated by a new awesome input device, I wonder how much he knew about the remote before the split, that would had also clouded his judgement.
Post by: Kairon on July 19, 2007, 04:12:15 PM
But the art form, in a much more general sense, I think is certainly benefitting from the new tools being afforded it, and invigorated by the new directions being explored.
Post by: mantidor on July 19, 2007, 05:03:57 PM
But I really don't want to start one of those "art" threads, so I'll leave it at that.
Post by: Kairon on July 19, 2007, 05:19:23 PM
Denis Dyack is AWESOME... But why did he have to go and spoil all the good will by sueing Epic?!?!??!?
Post by: Alfonse on July 19, 2007, 05:22:46 PM
Quote
At this point in time, however, games look pretty for the sake of looking pretty. They don't make a statement. They don't fit the style and mood of the game. I don't think a masterpiece like FF6 could be created at this point in time, given the current standards of the industry. There are far to many distractions. Costs are far too high.
That's an interesting comparison. You're comparing FF6 to, well, the average modern game. Why not compare FF6 to Halo? Or FFXII? Or Metroid Prime? Or Wind Waker? Or Soul Calibur? Or even Gears of War? Say what you will, but the visuals in all of these games make a specific statement.
Sure, if you compare FF6 to the average modern game, they do tend to look average. But so too does the average SNES game compared to FF6. Comparing a masterpiece to an average work is silly; of course it will come out better. Of course you'd prefer FF6 to random licensed garbage. That hasn't changed.
You think Retro Studios, given the opportunity for 360 development, would not yoke it to produce some awesome artistic production? Even Wind Waker's minimalistic style could have used the technology from 360 to improve its visual quality: textures that don't get nearly so blury, etc.
The issue has always been what you do with the tools you have available. And while I personally don't feel the need for greater-than-RE4 quality graphics, that doesn't mean that I don't appreciate the effort.
Furthermore, you (and Dyack, because he's a short-sighted hack) discount the possibility of new gameplay possibilities that are impossible on prior consoles. Super Mario Bros was simply not possible on an Atari; it just couldn't cut it. And so on. Even in the relatively modern day, something like GTA3 couldn't have been done on prior generations; it had certain basic memory requirements that made it impossible before then.
Who knows what gameplay possibilities exist with the kind of CPU performance and memory the new consoles have? Maybe nothing. Maybe we'll never find out, because developers don't explore them. But I would prefer to offer that one visionary developer the chance to make that power do something that was fundamentally impossible before.
Quote
And thats where Nintendo stepped in, unfortunately its also hard to see, because they implemented a remote and a touchscreen not because they think games are art (and I believe they have already stated that) but because they want to reach as much people as possible because they like money.
That is something far too few people realize. Nintendo didn't create these new devices to spur innovation. They didn't do it because they thought it would make games better. They did it to make more money by allowing them to more easily make content for more people. If it improves game design, it is merely a pleasing side benefit.
Quote
I wonder how much he knew about the remote before the split, that would had also clouded his judgement.
I don't think it would matter to him. It's clear that his focus is specifically on the visual realm. The possibilities inherent in remote-based control would be meaningless to him, just as the potential gameplay outgrowth from the greater memory and CPU of the other consoles is likewise meaningless to him.
Post by: Kairon on July 19, 2007, 06:13:27 PM
Also, since there's so many different ways to explore the medium, it means we should treasure the contributions of all these other participants. There is a place for pursuing stronger cinematic links, just like there's a place for using games to help educate. And just like Nintendo's chosen to focus on interface and market expansion, Lucas Arts is using the increased computing power of today for procedural animation and digital molecular matter.
Post by: denjet78 on July 19, 2007, 08:26:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Of course, I think the only videogame company out there to make a serious "we are art" statement is Rockstar. As companies, there's no question that they want to make money.
Also, since there's so many different ways to explore the medium, it means we should treasure the contributions of all these other participants. There is a place for pursuing stronger cinematic links, just like there's a place for using games to help educate. And just like Nintendo's chosen to focus on interface and market expansion, Lucas Arts is using the increased computing power of today for procedural animation and digital molecular matter.
Now when you say Rockstar is the only company out there making serious art did you mean like trashy "B" movies because that's the best I can see any of their games being. They're not trying to make art, they're making social and political statements and/or commentary. There's a rather big difference there.
As for Lucas Arts or other developers harnessing the more powerful systems in order to use feature "X", "Y" or"Z", how many of those new features are actually going to bring anything new to the table? How many of them are going to end up being a one trick pony and then never seen again? I remember when NURBS were considered the holy grail of graphics programming. Certainly these new systems should be more than adequately powerful enough for that technology today but when was the last time you heard anyone even mention NURBS? No one cares anymore. This great future technology never materialized. And now we have a whole new slew of technologies that are supposed to revolutionize gaming when in the end very few, if any of them, will ever catch on. In fact, most will be talked up quit a bit only to end up being cut down drastically, if not completely, from their debut games.
Everyone likes to talk big about technology because the average person doesn't have a clue as to what any of it means. They just hear big numbers and grand promises. Fractals anyone? I remember all the discussions about how incredibly powerful the PS2 was. That it could randomly generate an entire forest in game using fractals so that everyone's game would be different. Did it ever happen? Nope. Has anyone mentioned using fractals this generation in order to create randomly generated environments? I haven't heard word one. The fact is, it may sound great on paper but application is something completely different. When, or should I say IF, Lucas Arts ever makes use of procedural animation or digital molecular matter in a released game then we'll actually have something to talk about. Until then it's nothing but vague promises. And when it comes to the games industry promises are most definitely made to be broken.
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 19, 2007, 08:28:18 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
Of course, I think the only videogame company out there to make a serious "we are art" statement is Rockstar. As companies, there's no question that they want to make money.
Also, since there's so many different ways to explore the medium, it means we should treasure the contributions of all these other participants. There is a place for pursuing stronger cinematic links, just like there's a place for using games to help educate. And just like Nintendo's chosen to focus on interface and market expansion, Lucas Arts is using the increased computing power of today for procedural animation and digital molecular matter.
Now when you say Rockstar is the only company out there making serious art did you mean like trashy "B" movies because that's the best I can see any of their games being. They're not trying to make art, they're making social and political statements and/or commentary. There's a rather big difference there.
As for Lucas Arts or other developers harnessing the more powerful systems in order to use feature "X", "Y" or"Z", how many of those new features are actually going to bring anything new to the table? How many of them are going to end up being a one trick pony and then never seen again? I remember when NURBS were considered the holy grail of graphics programming. Certainly these new systems should be more than adequately powerful enough for that technology today but when was the last time you heard anyone even mention NURBS? No one cares anymore. This great future technology never materialized. And now we have a whole new slew of technologies that are supposed to revolutionize gaming when in the end very few, if any of them, will ever catch on. In fact, most will be talked up quit a bit only to end up being cut down drastically, if not completely, from their debut games.
Everyone likes to talk big about technology because the average person doesn't have a clue as to what any of it means. They just hear big numbers and grand promises. Fractals anyone? I remember all the discussions about how incredibly powerful the PS2 was. That it could randomly generate an entire forest in game using fractals so that everyone's game would be different. Did it ever happen? Nope. Has anyone mentioned using fractals this generation in order to create randomly generated environments? I haven't heard word one. The fact is, it may sound great on paper but application is something completely different. When, or should I say IF, Lucas Arts ever makes use of procedural animation or digital molecular matter in a released game then we'll actually have something to talk about. Until then it's nothing but vague promises. And when it comes to the games industry promises are most definitely made to be broken.
Don't you dare bring up GTA is not art, I may have to vomit again when Kairon, Evan and others start to defend the GTA series as artistically amazing games.
Post by: Kairon on July 19, 2007, 08:37:34 PM
Post by: Plugabugz on July 19, 2007, 08:45:53 PM
While games may be considered a new art form, low returns on investments still makes the budget people go weak at the knees. It doesnt matter if you make the most critically popular film of all time, if it fails to recoup its production costs amongst all the fanfare then its still a failure for the makers involved. Art style and spending on games do work well together - its just the good developers know how to get the balance right.
Post by: Mashiro on July 20, 2007, 02:25:21 AM
*space reserved for post*
Ehh too lazy to read all of this lol.
Post by: denjet78 on July 20, 2007, 09:21:26 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Don't you dare bring up GTA is not art, I may have to vomit again when Kairon, Evan and others start to defend the GTA series as artistically amazing games.
Anyone who wants to claim GTA as art must also claim Superman 64 to be art as well.
...
So, does anyone want to continue this discussion?
Post by: Mashiro on July 20, 2007, 09:29:07 AM
Post by: vudu on July 20, 2007, 09:34:01 AM
Post by: Maverick on July 20, 2007, 09:37:29 AM
Post by: Svevan on July 20, 2007, 11:46:39 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: denjet78Quote
Originally posted by: GoldenPhoenix
Don't you dare bring up GTA is not art, I may have to vomit again when Kairon, Evan and others start to defend the GTA series as artistically amazing games.
Anyone who wants to claim GTA as art must also claim Superman 64 to be art as well.
...
So, does anyone want to continue this discussion?
Yes, I want to continue it. In this thread.
Let's discuss Dyack here, please, and art in the other thread.
Post by: that Baby guy on July 20, 2007, 05:11:04 PM
Alfonse. Listen. I am comparing FF6 to every single current-gen game out there. Gears of War, Halo 3, whatever. There isn't any other game that tells a story and plays like FF6. Not one. Sure, games can look more real. The special effects can get better, but there's a limit. We've met that limit for now. We met it with the Gamecube, the Xbox, and even to some extents, the PS2. Tell me, is there any difference between an Xbox game and a 360 game besides the looks? I mean, sure, the girls in Soul Calibur 4 get bigger boobs, too, I forgot that one. My point: The GameCube could play Gears of War if the graphics were toned down a little bit. The environment would be the same, the enemies would be the same, but they'd have a lower polygon count and less detailed textures. In all reality, the atmosphere would be the same. Resident Evil 4 is going to be Resident Evil 4 no matter how many extra polygons get jammed in. The game industry hit a saturation wall. Microsoft plans to plow through that wall, but guess what? They can't. They haven't yet, and they won't be able to. Their attempts already cost too much, and they've gotten literally no where beyond having the best online system.
Sony also wanted to push past the wall. What happened? They cost too much now. Games cost too much to make, Sony's losing money on their console. No new ideas are being made. No games have been revolutions of their genre, nor have any defined new genres.
With the NES, Super Mario Bros. was an amazing feat on a home console. Contra was too. Super Mario Bros. 3 just about eclipses everything else there, but it reached the limit. The Super Nintendo came along, and took sprite/2D gaming to the limits. What happened after that? Sega made the Saturn, Sony made the PS, and Nintendo made the 64. The Saturn focused on 2D gaming. Sure, it made things look prettier, but let's face it, 2D games didn't need it anymore. Sony and Nintendo pushed a new experience using polygon-based games, and both thrived, though Sony won, Nintendo remained profitable.
The next gen? Sony and PS2, Microsoft and Xbox, Nintendo and GC. All three pushed polygonal gaming as far as it could go, in relation to depth of experience. Sony and Nintendo were profitable, Microsoft didn't plan on being profitable, but made entry into the market successfully.
This time around, Sony and MS kept trying to simply push polygons, and look where they're at. Sure, the games are pretty, but the exact same experience could be done on a PS2, Xbox, and GC. There isn't a real difference. Oh wait, there is. Everything costs more, companies are losing money on decent games, and Sony and Microsoft are really headed downhill. Nintendo is making bundles of money. That tells me that I'm right. That Nintendo is right. That you're wrong on this one. Microsoft has not sold but about a million 360's since Christmas. They flooded the market then to post pleasing sales numbers for investors, and now, they're not selling anymore. Sony has just been pathetic. Nintendo is probably three months away from overtaking the 360's lead. After all, what new experience does Gears bring? What is so special about MGS4? Why should I buy the next Devil May Cry? Is Little Big Planet an actual idea, let alone a new idea? No, no, nothing, I shouldn't, and buy Mario Vs. Donkey Kong 2, as well as Four Swords Adventures, and I guarantee between the two, you'll have every gameplay experience as LBP, except the environment will be much, much more fun and entertaining.
So yes, Nintendo has taken the right path: Innovation. There's nothing innovative or interesting about the other two systems, and nearly everyone has realized it. Gears offers no new Innovative experience, neither will MGS4 or Soul Calibur 4.
My complaint is that nothing new is happening on the 360 or the PS3. Can you find anything that's worth the horsepower the 360 has? Any reason why there has to be tons of bloom on a game to create an environment? Does it make the game any better than if it had less polygons? The difference between the N64/PS-PS2/GC/Xbox transition and the transition to this generation is pretty obvious. The Xbox, PS2, and GC took a limited world, a limited number of polygons, a limited number of enemies, and made this all as limitless as necessary. Look at Pikmin. Pikmin could not have been done on an N64. That many controlled AIs, that many enemies, and a photo-realistic environment wasn't possible then. Now, there's no reason to update from a PS2 to a PS3. No reason to go from Xbox to 360. There's no point. Like I said, developers will have increasingly difficult times creating just good games, let alone great ones, as the technology buffs and buffs and buffs up. There's too much detail, too much bloom, and it isn't worth the time or attention it gets. The Wii offers everything needed power-wise to create an immersible environment. Anything else really is too much, too tacked on, too expensive, and too much of a waste of time.
Has any game topped Super Metroid in non-linear exploration gameplay yet? No, plain and simple. They've tried. Metroid: Zero Mission was pretty close, and it was made to model Super Metroid pretty directly. And that's about it. Why? Metroid Prime and Metroid Prime 2 had too many distractions. Too mcuh else to worry about to get the level structure just perfect. Metroid Prime 3 has taken an extra year, so maybe they'll get it this time. I'm not dissing the Prime series, but the level of exploration just isn't on par with Super Metroid. It isn't, despite having fancy hardware.
And for the record, there wasn't anything special about Halo's graphics. People played Halo because of the multi-player and the story. The game was never actually visually outstanding.
Post by: Mashiro on July 20, 2007, 06:06:48 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Has any game topped Super Metroid in non-linear exploration gameplay yet? No, plain and simple.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH
Post by: Ceric on July 21, 2007, 04:39:02 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: MashiroQuote
Originally posted by: thatguy
Has any game topped Super Metroid in non-linear exploration gameplay yet? No, plain and simple.
QUOTED FOR TRUTH
Isn't that sort of pathetic though. No offence to Super Metroid at all you just think by now their be something else that could sit beside it.
Post by: Mashiro on July 21, 2007, 04:53:55 AM
It's sad but sometimes . . . you just can't top the oldies =P
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 21, 2007, 07:17:47 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
You would think so Ceric wouldn't you? I thought Fusion would have done it but we all know that game doesn't hold a candle to Super Metroid.
It's sad but sometimes . . . you just can't top the oldies =P
Like Super Mario Bros. 3!
Post by: Ceric on July 21, 2007, 09:42:33 AM
The funny thing is I think that most of the key parts of the development team are still part of Nintendo. Heres to Galaxy but I don't think it will match either.
Post by: Mashiro on July 21, 2007, 01:48:28 PM
Same with Super Metroid. Same with a Link to the Past. That's why it's very rare to ever find a new 2D game that is made with an existing franchise that matches the quality of the old games. But every now and again we are blessed with awesome old school (but new) gaming goodness. LoZ:PH comes to mind, and even new (Well now old) franchises like Golden Sun.
Also . . . I think when a development team REALLY cares about a project and gives it their all it shows in the final product and makes it all the more better. I don't know if I'm explaining that right of if that even makes any sense but . . . there is something different with playing (for example) NSMB and SMB3. It just feels different. Those classics . . . you just know that a lot of love and care and detail went into them.
Again I may not be explaining that well but yeah that's how I feel about a lot of the older tittles (and newer ones too that have that same level of quality).
Post by: Ceric on July 21, 2007, 04:49:16 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 21, 2007, 05:11:59 PM
Post by: Ceric on July 22, 2007, 04:36:35 AM
Post by: Kairon on July 22, 2007, 11:03:43 AM
Post by: Ceric on July 22, 2007, 01:33:53 PM
Post by: Mashiro on July 22, 2007, 01:35:43 PM
Post by: GoldenPhoenix on July 22, 2007, 02:01:03 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
I'm with you on hating Bowser's newest kid. I didn't like him in Sunshine and I still don't like him. Bring back the Koopa Kids Nintendo!
Yes Baby Bowser is an annoying character, Koopa Kids were so much better.
Post by: Arbok on July 22, 2007, 02:14:32 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Mashiro
I'm with you on hating Bowser's newest kid. I didn't like him in Sunshine and I still don't like him. Bring back the Koopa Kids Nintendo!
QFT
The only time Baby Bowser has been cool is when it was actually supposed to be Bowser back in Yoshi's Island and, to a lesser extent, Yoshi's Story. Once they made it an actual offspring of the character, they just ruined it...
Post by: Mashiro on July 22, 2007, 02:40:56 PM
Post by: bubicus on July 23, 2007, 11:37:56 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: AlfonseQuote
Furthermore, you (and Dyack, because he's a short-sighted hack) discount the possibility of new gameplay possibilities that are impossible on prior consoles. Super Mario Bros was simply not possible on an Atari; it just couldn't cut it. And so on. Even in the relatively modern day, something like GTA3 couldn't have been done on prior generations; it had certain basic memory requirements that made it impossible before then.
Actually, both games were possible on earlier hardware, but game designers and developers had not thought certain gameplay elements until later. I can't think of many games that have gameplay which cannot be replicated in some way on a console or PC configuration one or two generations old.
If you want to see some ancestors of GTA3, for example, look up Midwinter, Midwinter 2, and Hunter. These games had open, 3D environments featuring a wide variety of characters, vehicles, activities, and open-ended gameplay, all running on a 512KB Amiga or Atari ST around 1989-1991. If you want to go to 2D, you have games like Autoduel or Road Raider on the 64KB Apple II+ or C64.
The gameplay of Super Mario Bros. is definitely possible on an Atari 2600, if you're willing to use your imagination on the blocky graphics... :-) But some precursors to SMB on the Atari 2600 would be Pitfall 2, Raiders of the Lost Ark, Montezuma's Revenge, or the Swordquest series.
Memory requirements for data for a game like GTA3 are not that high, which is a big reason why similar games existed for over a decade before GTA3. Most of the memory overhead is due to the rendering engine, not data. For example, an object like a gun may require only a couple dozen bytes of information unrelated to the rendering engine. Then there's a few dozen more bytes of rendering information that is still independent of the engine, such as position, orientation, skin and/or color IDs, sound IDs, etc. Even if you had to make the rendering engine for, say, an 8-bit 2D system with only 64KB of available non-graphic memory, the core gameplay could still be implemented. For example, Autoduel. Since the gun is installed in the car and point in fixed directions, it doesn't even have to use up a lot of extra memory for rendering information that the 3D version requires. You don't need loads of textures, so you save several KB that way per object.
I guess I'm rambling now, but the short answer is: there is no strong relation between core gameplay possibilities and modern hardware capabilities. There is only a perception of it.
Post by: Mashiro on July 23, 2007, 11:48:14 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: bubicus
I guess I'm rambling now, but the short answer is: there is no strong relation between core gameplay possibilities and modern hardware capabilities. There is only a perception of it.
It's time for another fun filled edition of "Did you know!"
Did you know that Shigeru Miyamoto had wanted to implement the concept of having Mario ride a dinosaur far before Super Mario World? It's true, in fact he had wanted to do this right after Super Mario Bros. came out but couldn't due to hardware limitations.
(This is from a very old interview, I can't believe I found it online!)
Quote
Q. How do you decided when to make another Mario game?
A. After we finish a Mario game, the staff usually vows never to do another one! But once the game is released, we start thinking it may not be such a bad idea to add another title to the series. We usually have lots of ideas that we haven't been able to implement yet. A good example is Yoshi the dinosaur who just appeared in Super Mario World. We wanted to have Mario ride a dinosaur ever since we finished the original Super Mario Bros., but it was impossible technically. We were finally able to get Yoshi off the drawing boards with the Super NES.
Quote
Q. How do you go from a game idea to an actual program?
A. Usually the design staff gives detailed ideas to the programmers in the form of rough sketches and written instructions. But because it's a team effort, we often sit down and discuss different points, sometimes late into the night. What most players don't know is that everything in a video game happens for a reason. Even a powerful system like the SuperNES has many programming limitations. It's easy to say, "It would be better if you made such and such happen." Many time we probably think the same thing, but the idea just can't be done because of programming limitations.
