Author Topic: That next-gen itch (Read 20328 times)

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #25 on:** October 23, 2006, 12:38:01 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Kairon
I've been wowed more by Red Steel's artistic direction than StrangleHold's attempt to model the face of Chow-Yun Fat.

There are some really technically impressive games out there, but I've never been the type to be impressed by them for more than 2 seconds. I just can't stare at Gran Turismo's cars in high definition and get excited: It plays the same doesn't it? So what's the deal?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

Well, you can watch BRD movies when you're tired of being impressed at games for 2 seconds. Win-Win situation, don't you agree? You get impressive technology and non-gameplay entertainment as a backup! THAT'S A GOOD $600 PLUS TAX PLUS HDMI CABLE PLUS TAX WELL SPENT, RIGHT?

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #26 on:** October 23, 2006, 03:22:58 PM »

You know what I've noticed, and maybe I'm exagerrating but it seems many of the games on Xbox 360 have choppy or slow framerates, while the Wii games seem to run super smooth. This could be a perfect example of a disadvantage of more powerful hardware, companies try to do way too much with it and in turn it hurts the fluidity of the game (which is my number 1 concern when it comes to visuals).

P.S. I don't know about you guys but I was definately wowed by the boss visuals in Mario Galaxy, they looked close to CGI (especially the spider one!) which looked next-generation!

Galford · « **Reply #27 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:00:47 PM »

Err, this thread is going to retread points we've made a million times more.

I'll get right to the point, the Wii will suck dog balls when compared to
other systems in terms of graphics. That is the truth...

I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.

So instead of waiting for another fifty posts I'll just push this thread to it's inevitable
conculsion.

KnowsNothing · « **Reply #28 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:12:21 PM »

Quote
P.S. I don't know about you guys but I was definately wowed by the boss visuals in Mario Galaxy, they looked close to CGI (especially the spider one!) which looked next-generation!

Indeed, and that's because the devs didn't go for ultra-realism. Face it, developers have a long way to go before photorealistic graphics come out, and until that happens (which would SUCK, in my opinion), they're just getting deeper into the uncanny valley, and that's just gross. That's why I ALWAYS prefer whimsical/stylized games because they can achieve graphical "greatness" without making me feel icky.

Bloodworth · « **Reply #29 on:** October 23, 2006, 04:40:21 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford

I'll get right to the point, the Wii will suck dog balls when compared to
other systems in terms of graphics. That is the truth...

I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.

So instead of waiting for another fifty posts I'll just push this thread to it's inevitable
conculsion.

Actually, Galford that's not what I am going to say. I don't think it's possible for the Wii's graphics to suck unless developers churn out junk like Necro Nesia (and that junk comes on every platform). The multiplatform Activision titles I saw looked the same on Wii and PS3 except on PS3 they look like they've been shrinkwrapped. Now I'm not saying that PS3 doesn't completely outperform, especially when it comes to texture effects, but the Wii is powerful enough for every game to still look great.

Kairon · « **Reply #30 on:** October 23, 2006, 05:10:28 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Galford
I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.

Graphics don't matter. Art does.

Katamari Damacy > Elebits

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #31 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:11:39 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: KnowsNothing
Quote
P.S. I don't know about you guys but I was definately wowed by the boss visuals in Mario Galaxy, they looked close to CGI (especially the spider one!) which looked next-generation!

Indeed, and that's because the devs didn't go for ultra-realism. Face it, developers have a long way to go before photorealistic graphics come out, and until that happens (which would SUCK, in my opinion), they're just getting deeper into the uncanny valley, and that's just gross. That's why I ALWAYS prefer whimsical/stylized games because they can achieve graphical "greatness" without making me feel icky.

I'm not sure if you've seen Crysis in motion or not, but that is almost photorealistic, but it also does not look like fun either! Not to mention the framerate and animations are not fluid enough in the current builds which I see as a big problem when approaching photo realism, but regardless we are getting close. Personally I find it a bit silly to say Wii will suck compared to Xbox 360 or PS3, because at the moment not even Xbox sucks visually compared to them! I'm not sure Wi can compete well with realstic visuals at 480p (though Red Steel is doing a fine job at the moment) but I think we could be seeing similar visuals for more artistic game designs that are not based on realism (again I refer back to the gorgeous boss designs in Mario Galaxy), like Mario Galaxy or other games not based in our reality and have a more "Cartoony" or out of this world theme.

NinGurl69 *huggles · « **Reply #32 on:** October 23, 2006, 08:21:50 PM »

What the? Was RE4 erased from your world or something?

RE4 accomplished A LOT in terms of a tangible or photo-realistic style (without looking outstandingly plastic either), on last year's hardware. We simply have yet to see a developer with Capcom's brand of artistic and engineering talent try something similar on Wii. Granted, we don't want too many games to share RE's modern style. But Capcom's approach to achieving a photo-realistic IMPRESSION was quite successful.

Svevan · « **Reply #33 on:** October 23, 2006, 09:37:08 PM »

But why hasn't anyone else been able to replicate it since then? Will we really see something quite like RE4 for Wii? RE5, maybe, or Zelda: Moonshine Bracelet, but if not by Nintendo or a major third party like Capcom, not often.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #34 on:** October 23, 2006, 10:17:36 PM »

Games don't become immersive on graphics, they do so on gameplay.

Let me give an example: World of Warcraft is a visually complex 3D game which is intended to immerse the player in a fantasy world. Clan Lord is a 2D sprite based game with the same intention. I've played both for a reasonable length of time and I was more immersed by Clan Lord and its 2D goodness than WoW ever immersed me because the GAMEPLAY made me feel more a part of the Clan Lord world than WoW did for its own world.

Which do you focus more intently upon: the latest Hollywood sh*tfest with multi-million dollar CGI and eye candy everywhere, or the hand drawn works of a flash designer who tells a gripping story?

It's ALWAYS been the latter. I get wrapped up in story-rich movies, TV and anime which makes me want to see what happens to their stories and characters. I do NOT feel the same way about flashy movies with tons of pretty CGI.

Look at the Matrix sequels, look at SW: Episodes 1-3. Despite being graphically stunning, many people thought these movies sucked a whole pile of ass because they had garbage for storyline.

As for the "next gen", the only thing which makes me feel like I'm playing something fresh and new is the idea of pointing an object at an enemy as though it were a gun and squeezing what feels similar to a trigger instead of pushing down on an analogue stick and squeezing a shoulder button.

People will choose their system and games accordingly, especially after they try the Wii at kiosks.

Bloodworth · « **Reply #35 on:** October 23, 2006, 10:45:55 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Svevan
Zelda: Moonshine Bracelet

Evan what are you doing? I told you not to mention the second Zelda game coming out next year.

GoldenPhoenix · « **Reply #36 on:** October 23, 2006, 11:31:24 PM »

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
What the? Was RE4 erased from your world or something?

RE4 accomplished A LOT in terms of a tangible or photo-realistic style (without looking outstandingly plastic either), on last year's hardware. We simply have yet to see a developer with Capcom's brand of artistic and engineering talent try something similar on Wii. Granted, we don't want too many games to share RE's modern style. But Capcom's approach to achieving a photo-realistic IMPRESSION was quite successful.

You are right, I was mainly referring to overall visuals, RE had great character models but the scenary wasn't exactly photo realistic. Personally I am someone who doesn't care that much about photo realism and in fact kind of fear where it will take gaming (Post apocalyptic, FPSers here we come) though RE4 did do a great job visually.

I think we will be seeing photo realism in both visuals, framerate and animation in about two generations of PC cards (so the Geforce 10000 or whatever), by that time I see console systems really struggling because already we are seeing signs of the dimishing returns of graphics in regards to next generation hardware. Not to mention the photo realism hardware will come staggering costs to create games for it! This will be a prime time for Nintendo to flip the industry on its head, if it doesn't do so with the Wii.

zakkiel · « **Reply #37 on:** October 24, 2006, 07:05:41 AM »

Quote
Err, this thread is going to retread points we've made a million times more.

I'll get right to the point, the Wii will suck dog balls when compared to
other systems in terms of graphics. That is the truth...

I fully expect someone else to say that graphics don't matter and gameplay
is everything.

So instead of waiting for another fifty posts I'll just push this thread to it's inevitable
conculsion.

Raving Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, Gaemplay does!

Ranting Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, art direction does!

Deluded Nintendo Fanboy: The Wii is simpler to program for, so developers will get graphics almost as good!

Blind Nintendo Fanboy: The 360 and PS3 games aren't much of a leap forward, either!

And with this plus random whiners, you can summarize every graphics thread that will ever appear in this forum.

couchmonkey · « **Reply #38 on:** October 24, 2006, 08:56:26 AM »

The superior Nintendo Fanboy: I can predict exactly what will happen in this thread, you're all wasting your time!

I fall into the Raving, Ranting and Blind fanboy categories. I know simple programming is never going to fix Wii's graphical shortcomings, but I believe in the other three to varying degrees. Right now I feel like the Ranting fanboy!

Art direction can't completely substitute for better graphics. The NES's best looking games are all crap today. I'll still play them because they're fun, and there is a certain charm to those 8-bit graphics, but looking at Nintendo's Bit Generations line on Game Boy - though they look neat, I'd never pay full price for any of them because the graphics aren't up to par.

That said, graphics do eventually reach a point where art direction is more important than power. PS3 and Xbox 360, IMO, have definitely reached that point. Current-gen system and Wii are very close, if not already there. Computer animated movies are where it becomes quite apparent. They have all the resources they need, but various art direction issues bring out the flaws. Currently, too much realism exposes the flaws - Polar Express looks creepy when you see the almost-but-not-quite photorealistic characters talking. Poor character design and the tendency towards uniformity in computer animated characters is another problem - Doogle, Monster House and Hoodwinked all look kind of generic (and in some cases just plain silly) due to so-so designs. That's where 2D animation has some neat advantages - it doesn't have to conform to any physical laws. Spongebob Squarepants can be any shape you want and it can change at will.

wandering · « **Reply #39 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:12:22 AM »

Where does "I don't want to pay $400 for a console and $60 for games" come in? Frugal Nintendo fanboy?

JonLeung · « **Reply #40 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:17:22 AM »

Can't we be fans without being fanboys (or fangirls)? FanBOY sounds so negative, or at least somewhat condescending.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #41 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:32:51 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: zakkiel
Raving Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, Gaemplay does!

Ranting Nintendo Fanboy: Graphics don't matter, art direction does!

Deluded Nintendo Fanboy: The Wii is simpler to program for, so developers will get graphics almost as good!

Blind Nintendo Fanboy: The 360 and PS3 games aren't much of a leap forward, either!

And with this plus random whiners, you can summarize every graphics thread that will ever appear in this forum.

Historic Nintendo Fanboy: Historically, the graphics have never won a console war. The GB beat the GameGear, the PS1 beat the N64, the DS beat the PSP, the PS2 beat the Xbox and GC.

You're probably going to say, "Yeah, but the circumstances blah, blah, etc." Doesn't matter. The point is, if graphics actually mattered, then these console wars would either be a great deal closer in the running or SOMEWHERE along the lines, one of these consoles would have won by producing more impressive visuals than its competition.

It hasn't happened yet and I don't see why it would happen this gen, either, especially not when the premium people will pay for "better graphics" will be so much higher.

vudu · « **Reply #42 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:32:56 AM »

Quote
Originally posted by: JonLeung
Can't we be fans without being fanboys (or fangirls)? FanBOY sounds so negative, or at least somewhat condescending.

No; we can't. You're a fan, you're a boy--you're a fanboy.

JonLeung is my boyfriend.

Kairon · « **Reply #43 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:37:45 AM »

[ranting Nintendo fanboi]

I'm a fanboI. There's a difference!

Seriously though, I'm not saying this out of fandom. There are NES games I'd pay more money for than some of today's more graphically endowed offerings. And I STILL love the graphics of those days. Videogames are an ART, not a science. Beauty is not how many polygons or pixels you have, it's what sort of emotions you inspire.

I admire technical achievement, I really do. But if that was all, I'd be in a general Computer Science major. Instead, I'm at a risky, fledgeling Game and Simulation Programming course and feel like my entire life has been gearing me for this medium: my reading, my sports, my music, my third-seat clarinet, my acting, my amatuerish investigations into science and religion and philosophy, my Calvin & Hobbes series, my depressing foreign independent movie netflix rentals, my civic socio-political background and environment... ALL these things are there NOT to drive me to inject more polygons into gaming, but to want to craft a game into something more culturally, socially, and personally relevant.

... I refuse to see this industry as being driven by special effects houses and not the creativity of auteurs (however, these visionaries definitely may have their vision driven by special effect's possibilities. Point-in-case: George Lucas).

[/ranting Nintendo fanboi]

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

bustin98 · « **Reply #44 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:40:48 AM »

Quote
JonLeung is my boyfriend.

Jon is such a man whore

JonLeung · « **Reply #45 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:42:18 AM »

Okay, shup.

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #46 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:43:02 AM »

Don't get me wrong: I like pretty games as well.

It's just that pretty games haven't won a console war yet so I don't see why they'd start now.

JonLeung · « **Reply #47 on:** October 24, 2006, 09:48:49 AM »

Yeah, I think it's weird that the PSX and PS2 were the technically inferior consoles for their respective generations and then Sony turns around and insists that power is key and pumps up their PS3.

I'm not saying that for their sake they should've stayed "inferior". They've just banked way too much on power now.

Oh, whatever. They keep screwing up no matter how you look at it, so I guess if (and at this rate, more likely just a question of when!) they go down they'd rather be remembered for having this uber-powerful PS3 instead of a wimpy PS3.

But power's not good if the hardware will keep failing. BURN!

Smash_Brother · « **Reply #48 on:** October 24, 2006, 10:05:44 AM »

Arguably, it's the powerful PS3 that killed them.

If they had kept it reasonable and not shot for the goddamn moon, the blasted thing wouldn't cost $600 and they wouldn't be so immensely difficult to manufacture.

JonLeung · « **Reply #49 on:** October 24, 2006, 10:10:28 AM »

I guess so, actually.

Considering all those stories about shoddy PSXes and PS2s, I think it'd be downright scary to get a PS3 because their attempt to cram so much power in there sounds like it will probably result in practically guaranteed hardware failures.

I remember hearing how the PS2 had inflated sales numbers because some people ended up buying two or three to replace ones that failed. Not sure how true that is, but if Sony has always been as stupid as they sound now, maybe it's not so farfetched after all.

News:

Author Topic: That next-gen itch (Read 20328 times)