Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 09:23:29 AM
It isn't a perfect editorial, but i think it does sum up the stupidity of all the comments made about the Rev's graphical power, a few excerpts from the editorial.
It's the interaction that distinguishes games from the other mediums. So why has graphics become the benchmark in a medium where GAMEPLAY is the unique identifier? Who knows. Graphics should be the benchmark for movies and sound should be a benchmark for music. How backwards have we become?
Do we judge a music album based on the music video? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the SOUND that matters. Do we judge a movie by how good the soundtrack is? Hell no, that doesn't make sense since it's the VISUAL PERFORMANCE that matters. Do we judge games primarily by how good the GRAPHICS are? Yes we do. In a medium where graphics should take a backseat to interactivity, the majority of us have been trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at graphics and put gameplay in the backseat. Case in point: The whole MGS4 "unveiling" (or the whole PS3 unvieling for that matter). Like little trained monkies we jumped up and down at these graphics and claimed that "The next generation is here!" That's stupid. I'm stupid. We're all stupid. We've all been duped. Now most of us are all but ready to write-off a console that could be just what this stale f**king industry needs just because it doesn't meet our bastardized benchmark of what constitutes a "next generation" console, namely better graphics. We're a bunch of marketing tools for lazy developers who'd rather get rich by just improving visuals, animation and physics while giving us the same gameplay experience as the Playstation.
Post by: vudu on December 09, 2005, 10:45:18 AM
Oh wait ... you do? Nevermind.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 11:05:11 AM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 09, 2005, 11:07:33 AM
I do believe that games should push the limits of their technical power, and look and sound as good as possible. However, all the griping about the Revolution being underpowered is ridiculous.
Post by: JonLeung on December 09, 2005, 11:19:00 AM
Movies, especially those involving special effects or elaborate costumes, or even something as simple as camera technology advances, have certainly gotten more visually impressive. But if you were to say that a new movie that looks good is better than an older movie that might not look as good, well, that's just silly.
So you could make the same case here. A game can look good, but if it doesn't play well, then it doesn't matter.
That being said, I didn't think the editorial was all that. It's actually a shame, really, if it opens some eyes to the obvious.
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 11:50:40 AM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 11:55:27 AM
Quote
That being said, I didn't think the editorial was all that
True the editorial has its flaws, but I still like the overall point that the negatives leveled against the revolution due to its graphical capabilities are ridiculous in that they focus on a secondary aspect of gaming rather than the more important aspects of gameplay and interactivity.
Post by: eljefe on December 09, 2005, 12:09:11 PM
QuoteThe question isn't DO we, its SHOULD we.
Originally posted by: vudu
Do you judge a music album based on sound quality? Do you judge a movie by the quality of the film/resolution?
Oh wait ... you do? Nevermind.
All of this goes deeper than videogames, its how people view the world, art in particular. People get personally offended when a movie director doesn't make a film the way THEY wanted him to. Folks get upset when a band or musician changes their style from album to album and some get mad cause their favorites have remained stagnant for decades. And now that attitude is becoming pervasive in the videogame world. It has changed from artistic expression to a huge business industry. And nobody is sure how to handle the pressure. Not developers, publishers, not even fans. It has altered the way people make the games and run the companies and how things are marketed.
It was unnavoidable. And, to be fair, there have been positives to the money boom, and there have been standout games and developers over the years.
But, should we literally get upset if companies don't bend to our every whim and desire? No. The solution is simple, and you actually have many options: tolerate the traits of the product or company you disagree with; buy all the company you disagree with; tolerate multiple companies and enjoy the positive traits of all; or make your OWN company, design a product that fits YOUR needs, and market it the way YOU want.
Things are never that simple, though. Its because consumers are too lazy and/or brainwashed to support innovation (or create something of their own). But, curiously enough, they have plenty of time and energy to waste complaining about "what's wrong with society", (or in this case the VG industry).
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 12:20:55 PM
Quote
A great piece of music can have a fantastic melody but it will still sound like crap on a kazoo. A film can have an amazing story but if it had a crayon drawing on cardboard for the background you couldn't get into it. Yeah the gameplay is what matters most but it is not ALL that matters and a lot of "gameplay advocates" miss that point. A great game is great because of the whole package. With the best games everything clicks including the gameplay and the presentation itself. Just having great graphics alone isn't good enough but they are essential nonetheless.
And yet many older works are still considered amazing even when compared to today's creations, even without all the technological advancements we've made (In gaming for example why are games like SMB 64, World and SMB 3 still popular even with all the advancements in technology since their release).
Also using the imagry of a kazoo or crayon is pushing the argument outside the realm of belief as the disparity between the consoles is far smaller than the disparity between those tools and the ones used by professionals in their respective fields.
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on December 09, 2005, 12:22:01 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 09, 2005, 01:16:55 PM
Also, Super Mario 1 had terrible graphics but was a landmark and a great game.
Post by: nickmitch on December 09, 2005, 01:31:35 PM
Post by: ThePerm on December 09, 2005, 01:48:33 PM
Post by: Ian Sane on December 09, 2005, 01:55:34 PM
It didn't back in 1985.
Post by: odifiend on December 09, 2005, 02:05:31 PM
Post by: mjbd on December 09, 2005, 02:39:18 PM
Post by: Hostile Creation on December 09, 2005, 02:54:36 PM
Okay. So what about Katamari Damacy, GTA, games like that? They're far from what we see in stuff like RE4 or Metroid Prime, but they're still very high-selling games.
Post by: Djunknown on December 09, 2005, 04:13:07 PM
Unfortunatley, ever since the 16-bit days, its the visuals that we the gamers have drooled over. Why? Its the easiest thing to judge. For the upcoming game releases, screen shots, footage and hands on impressions are all we, the consumers have to go on. Couple the fact the majority of gamers are still men, who are very, very visual oriented, and you've got this endless obession with visuals. We don't really complain about sound, unless its really, really bad.
Though we have to admit, its getting hard to define what is nex-gen. From 2d-3d, to 3d polys that you can count to 3d polys that you can't, judging nex-gen by visuals alone is tough. The question gamers have to ask themselves is: What can this new system do that my last gen console can't? Nintendo's Revolution answers this question with its controller, at least in theory. The devs have buy into the idea, and execute it. Though I'm pretty sure if/when we can control thousands of Pikmin on screen with a dash of the Wand, we can safely say we're next-gen.
For the 360/PS3, the knee-jerk answer to answer my question above is to make it bigger, better, or something completey different that couldn't have been done in the past. The scene in Kameo where she's in a battle with what seems to be thousands of creatures on screen is such an example.
Post by: KDR_11k on December 09, 2005, 10:30:34 PM
You haven't watched Dogville, I take it?
Post by: wandering on December 10, 2005, 05:11:24 AM
Quote
A great game is great because of the whole package.
I can't believe I'm saying this, but I actually agree with Ian.
Film isn't JUST about the visuals, it's about combination of good visuals (which are produced by a number of different elements that have to come together, including art direction, cinematography, set design and construction, makeup, etc), good acting, a good script, good music, good sound, etc, etc, etc. And the same is true of games: ocarina of time wasn't just about good gameplay, it was about epic landscapes and beautiful music and making connections with characters, etc, etc, etc.
The author of the article is partly correct however: while games are about a combination of elements, they aren't about technical excellence specifically. In the same way that the Lord of the Rings trilogy was better than the star wars prequel trilogy in spite of the fact the lord of the rings made heavy use of 'low tech' miniatures (and a certain low-tech technique called 'acting') and star wars made heavy use of 'high-tech' cgi....Revolution won't necessarily provide worse experiences, or even worse visuals, because it's hardware is technically inferior, or because game designers don't use bleeding edge techniques.
Post by: Kairon on December 10, 2005, 08:10:43 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: KDR_11k
A film can have an amazing story but if it had a crayon drawing on cardboard for the background you couldn't get into it.
You haven't watched Dogville, I take it?
I will kill anyone who says that Dogville was a "crayon drawing on cardboard for the background."
Dogville was an amazing movie, and it's stage setting with only lines drawn for houses was a BRILLIANT artistic decision. The opening shot alone, where we see dogville from a top-down view and it looks like a map, is meant to invoke our own sense of looking at the USA or other countries as maps. I AM A LARS VON TRIER FANBOY!!!
... that said, it's ridiculous to say graphics and technical power doesn't count. Pikmin should be looked at as a game that couldn't take place without a certain amount of technical power. So should GTA 3.
But it's ALSO ridiculous to put overwhelming weight on pure technical power. After all, there are sooo many other factors that make up games and it wouldn't do to focus on just hardware when user interfaces are holding you back.
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: KDR_11k on December 10, 2005, 08:34:43 AM
The complaints of lacking next-gen performance aren't because performance is completely unnecessary but because performance is so good there's very little left that can't be done. Did 2d need improvement after the SNES?
Post by: Kairon on December 10, 2005, 08:54:09 AM
~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com
Post by: Epitaph on December 10, 2005, 08:47:15 PM
Post by: IceCold on December 10, 2005, 10:32:18 PM
QuoteSorry, how can a franchise arguably be one of the best selling of all time? And what are fisuals? Makes me think of fission, or fossils, or something
Dragon quest arguably one of the best selling franchises of all time has never had amazing fisuals.
Anyway, I agree that graphics definitely do add to the game, but I don't know why we're even debating this point, since the Rev's graphics won't be drastically worse at all. Someone brought up a Dreamcast/PS2 comparison as an example of what they would be like, but honestly, I don't think we'll see that big of a gap. On a standard def set, there might be a marginal increase at best.
Post by: mac<censored> on December 11, 2005, 03:38:48 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: IceCold
the Rev's graphics won't be drastically worse at all. Someone brought up a Dreamcast/PS2 comparison as an example of what they would be like, but honestly, I don't think we'll see that big of a gap. On a standard def set, there might be a marginal increase at best.
But only with the PS2 will you get Kutaragi's Giant Head.
Post by: ThePerm on December 11, 2005, 07:46:27 AM
Post by: Epitaph on December 11, 2005, 05:05:56 PM
Post by: Galford on December 12, 2005, 09:42:45 AM
Post by: NinGurl69 *huggles on December 12, 2005, 03:37:56 PM
No, i didn't look this up.
Post by: couchmonkey on December 13, 2005, 05:39:10 AM
Post by: JonLeung on December 13, 2005, 12:22:00 PM
I'm guessing they specified that because Super Mario Bros. before that probably sold a ton, being packed with almost every new NES. Tetris probably sold a xagabazillion on its Game Boy incarnation alone.
Anyway...
