Hawkeye on 10 August 2008
| The Ghost of RubangB said: Back then it was NES vs. the world. Even TV, books, and "real life" were competitors. The NES still owned everything. I know the graphical gap between consoles is bigger than ever now, but I really don't care anymore. I think the big graphical hump we needed to get over was just past the PS2. I can go back and play XBox or GameCube games, but PS2 games look like shit now. (I'll still play the PS2 games I enjoyed. Looking like shit doesn't get in the way of my fun.) Now that we're past the ugly 3-D hump, the next hump is the uncanny valley. We're gonna be stuck in there for a loooong time, so I really won't care about graphics until then. And even then, I think that last visual hump isn't necessary. I don't need to relate to human-looking characters. This isn't film. It's games. The graphics are good enough for all games except "realistic cinematic games." And I'd rather watch films than play those anyway. So I've opted out of all graphical battles from here on out. Forever. How are graphics going to make Halo, Tetris, GTA, Boom Blox, or Zelda better? Those games ALL LOOK GREAT. They need to work on gameplay only until we're out of the uncanny valley, and then we can start the argument all over again about the ways we identify with characters and hoq it helps immersion but costs way too much and puts indie devs out of business or into EA's clutches. |
I feel the same. One of the first things I thought when I got my GC and played SMS was: I want handhelds to look this good, and they do, I won't need them to look any better. This is good enough. Though I would like consoles to be more powerful, I think that GC you can tell everything that is going on and it is fine.
What games could only be possible this gen due to graphical advances? Oblvion? GTA4? GTA3 and Morrowind worked fine. The only game I can think of is dead rising, and that works on the Wii, so...
