Quantcast
Locked: This is why the PS3 needs to win this gen

Forums - Gaming Discussion - This is why the PS3 needs to win this gen

I'd say Art is admired more by the Elderly as they like leaving a legacy of themselves and their generation, and since Art tends to be recorded, they appreciate it moreso. Teens, aren't worried about their legacy yet.



See Ya George.

"He did not die - He passed Away"

At least following a comedians own jokes makes his death easier.

Around the Network
Bodhesatva said:

Not completely, but largely. I think a good example would be the human form; throughout history, what has been deemed "attractive" has changed in many  ways. Obesity was considered attractive, then near-anorexia. Lighter skin, darker skin, long hair, short hair, and so forth.

But a few things DO remain constant. It's been shown that in basically every culture since anthropologists began tracking such things, men with a shoulder-to-waist ratio of about 1.5 are considered the most attractive; for women, a waist-to-hip ratio of about .7 is considered attractive. Keep in mind that this is very precise -- not .8 or .6, and it's EVERY culture. 

What this suggests, to me, is that there are some things about taste that change over time, and some things that are programmed into our genes. In the same way, I think much of our taste in art may fluxuate, but there are some things that have remained constant.

The easiest examples: almost all art that's considered highly significant had a complex philosphical, intellectual, emotional, or thematic intention. Another simple thing: it's interesting to note that almost EVERYTHING considered "high art" -- be it modern painting, classical painting, sculpture, opera, or great cinema -- are almost universally loathed by children and teenagers. If they hated old art but loved modern, maybe you could argue that this is a consequence of older people "not being with the times," but the uniformity of the disinterest across all genres and time periods suggests that there are some common trends across all art forms and historical periods. I'm not even going to go into what I think those trends ARE, because it's obviously extremely complex, I'm just saying they apparently exist. 


Interesting that you bring that up about the human form and what the common themes are amongst cultures. So, you do know your art history. I thought only us illustrators were forced to learn completely useless crap like that. :D

I'm not arguing that there are things that cultures, throughout time, consistently find appealing. That's been proven in various forms a multitude of times.

My ultimate point is this: The most revered art in the future is rarely the art you're focusing on in the present. Often times it's too shocking, new, abstract, whatever for you to acknowledge as great art. But as time passes, future generations will begin to appreciate it and hold it as the gold standard for a generation. And it will influence them. This works for anything from Impressionism to Rock 'n' Roll music or modern writing. At the time, it was crap/spawned from Satan/not fit for human consumption. Only later were trends able to be picked out and analyzed.

Which, in turn, makes any point whatsoever about gaming not being art completely non-existent. Which could bring me back to my point about art being completely individualistic... But let's not get into that again. I'm getting sleepy. :D




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

rocketpig said:
Bodhesatva said:

Not completely, but largely. I think a good example would be the human form; throughout history, what has been deemed "attractive" has changed in many ways. Obesity was considered attractive, then near-anorexia. Lighter skin, darker skin, long hair, short hair, and so forth.

But a few things DO remain constant. It's been shown that in basically every culture since anthropologists began tracking such things, men with a shoulder-to-waist ratio of about 1.5 are considered the most attractive; for women, a waist-to-hip ratio of about .7 is considered attractive. Keep in mind that this is very precise -- not .8 or .6, and it's EVERY culture.

What this suggests, to me, is that there are some things about taste that change over time, and some things that are programmed into our genes. In the same way, I think much of our taste in art may fluxuate, but there are some things that have remained constant.

The easiest examples: almost all art that's considered highly significant had a complex philosphical, intellectual, emotional, or thematic intention. Another simple thing: it's interesting to note that almost EVERYTHING considered "high art" -- be it modern painting, classical painting, sculpture, opera, or great cinema -- are almost universally loathed by children and teenagers. If they hated old art but loved modern, maybe you could argue that this is a consequence of older people "not being with the times," but the uniformity of the disinterest across all genres and time periods suggests that there are some common trends across all art forms and historical periods. I'm not even going to go into what I think those trends ARE, because it's obviously extremely complex, I'm just saying they apparently exist.


Interesting that you bring that up about the human form and what the common themes are amongst cultures. So, you do know your art history. I thought only us illustrators were forced to learn completely useless crap like that. :D

I'm not arguing that there are things that cultures, throughout time, consistently find appealing. That's been proven in various forms a multitude of times.

My ultimate point is this: The most revered art in the future is rarely the art you're focusing on in the present. Often times it's too shocking, new, abstract, whatever for you to acknowledge as great art. But as time passes, future generations will begin to appreciate it and hold it as the gold standard for a generation. And it will influence them. This works for anything from Impressionism to Rock 'n' Roll music or modern writing. At the time, it was crap/spawned from Satan/not fit for human consumption. Only later were trends able to be picked out and analyzed.

Which, in turn, makes any point whatsoever about gaming not being art completely non-existent. Which could bring me back to my point about art being completely individualistic... But let's not get into that again. I'm getting sleepy. :D


Yep, I think we largely agree -- in my opinion, you can only have long, interesting conversations like this when you mostly agree, and have only a few fine points of distinction.

You're one of my favorite posters Rocketpig. Just wanted to let you know. Also, your avatar rocks.



http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/Arkives/Disccopy.jpg%5B/IMG%5D">

Thanks. It's my business logo. I designed the stupid creature in 1995 and the damned thing stuck. Now I'm forever known as "Rocketpig".

Ah, for better or for worse, it's kinda funny.


BTW, in a forum full of rabid fanboys, conversations like this are a refreshing alternative. Thanks again for another quality discussion.



Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

ssj12 said:

http://media.ps3.ign.com/media/700/700186/vid_2030516.html

If the Wii wins designers wont be able to make truly spectular visually stunning games using techniques and technologies that the heavenly sword devs are. Things like what they are doing will make it so that you cant truly be taken in by the characters and make you feel right in the action.

I know im going to be flamed in every way for this but seriously think about it, does any Wii games other then maybe Zelda or Metroid really bring you into the action, or make you envision yourself as the character? I know the SNES and N64 did but I've played a lot of GC games, none really pulled me in (starfox kinda did).

 

 


 Give it a rest...the PS3 wont win this generation...



Around the Network
ssj12 said:

I know im going to be flamed in every way for this but seriously think about it, does any Wii games other then maybe Zelda or Metroid really bring you into the action, or make you envision yourself as the character? I know the SNES and N64 did but I've played a lot of GC games, none really pulled me in (starfox kinda did). 


I hate to go back on topic (God, I hate it when I do that), but how did RE4 not pull you in? I thought it was the greatest horror game ever created. I was shouting at the TV for the first 20 minutes or so. After that it settled in but the experience of those 20 minutes rank up there with any gaming experience I've ever had. Don't get me wrong, the rest of the game was great but those first 20 minutes are unforgettable.

And this is coming from a devout RE-hater. After RE2, I thought the series went to hell in a handbasket. Silent Hill and a few others surpassed the series until RE4 hit. It bothers me that they're going back to Umbrella with RE5 when they had such a great thing going with the new direction. 




Or check out my new webcomic: http://selfcentent.com/

I guess developers will have to wait till next generation to make truly spectacular looking games, you know, when its cost effective, within the means of reason and practical. Not forced into the fledgling HD market at top dollar as certain companies are trying to do now with their consoles.

While everyone is entitled to their opinion, I honestly have no sympathy for the plight of graphics whores and technophiles. Of what I've seen nothing the PS3 has done yet or promises to do, no matter how beautiful or stunning, could possibly ever justify the expenditure and direction Sony is trying to take gaming. HD is great, but its not worth sacrificing all else for. Blu-Ray is spiffy but it is not a necessity at this point in time and should not be treated as one.

If this spectacle of graphics is indeed as worthwhile to gaming as you claim it is I think you can at least do it the service of being patient and waiting another generation before it becomes realistic to implement.



I liked the video a lot. Andy Serkis is gonna be awesome in Heavenly Sword :)



Thanks to Blacksaber for the sig!

As long as videogame companies can make enough money to justify making these graphically impressive games they will continue to be made. The Wii being the most popular system in the generation (even by a long shot) will not impact the ability for developers to be profitable with these games. Basically, if you can't produce a game that is profitable after being released for the XBox 360, PS3 and PC then the game was not going to be profitable if it was released on a system with a 100 million person userbase.

Will we see less of these games?

Probably, but I would say that is a good thing. In the last 2 generations producing pretty trash has been an adequate strategy for making money; a 4 hour game that has pretty graphics but shallow, boring gameplay was easily able to break even by releasing screenshots to hype the fanboys. Companies will have to focus more on making interesting grapically impressive games to ensure they get the sales they need, or to produce interesting less graphically impressive games because screenshots alone will not be able to easily hype people.



Good discussion here. I'll leave aside the rocketpig/Bodhesatva discussion on art and focus on the original topic.

There's an inherent flaw with the notion that the Wii will "destroy" gaming, preventing titles like Heavenly Sword from appearing. For some reason, ssj12 is worried that these type of games (focusing on visuals and cinematic story-telling) will disappear. That won't happen so long as there is a market for these kind of games - and quite a few posters have already mentioned this. What I'd like to add is that the sentiment expressed in the original post implies a degree of coercion which simply does not exist. Let me explain.

Video game consoles and software are sold in a market that is (relatively) free. No one is forcing consumers to purchase one system over the other, or forcing them to buy certain games. If consumers want to play games like Heavenly Sword, then that's what they will buy. Nintendo can't stop that from happening. Now if consumer are instead purchasing titles like Warioware and Cooking Mama, that's also them exercising their right of free choice. We can pan these games all we want, but ultimately consumers will vote with their wallets. That's why free markets (even with all their problems) have always been and will always be one of the most democratic institutions imaginable.

This is why it's fallacious to suggest that any particular console "must" win in a particular generation. If a console fails in the market, that's usually the result of consumers not wanting to buy it. What's the alternative - making people buy a product they don't want or need? Sony is faltering at the moment because they tried to put the product before the customer (much as Nintendo did in the N64 days, I might add). Because a free market lacks coercive power, the consoles and games that consumers most want to purchase will always do just fine.

If people want Heavenly Sword-style games, they'll sell well and more will be made. If that's not what consumers want, they will sell poorly and there will be few sequels. It's as simple as that. The Wii has nothing to do with it.



My Website

End of 2008 totals: Wii 42m, 360 24m, PS3 18.5m (made Jan. 4, 2008)