Words Of Wisdom said:
Kasz216 said:
Words Of Wisdom said:
Kasz216 said:
| Words Of Wisdom said: Kidding aside, when people throw out the gameplay versus graphics argument for development time do they take into consideration the cost that into the artists making the graphics versus the programmers building the gameplay? Is the actual coding required to support HD graphics very difficult? If not, does the argument that you have better gameplay with weaker graphics necessarily hold water? |
If a high end HD game costs twice as much as a high end SD game... and considering how much longer it takes to make a car in GT5 then it does GT4.... I'd say it's safe to say it takes up a large part of the developments time and budget. |
I think you missed my point so I'll reiterate it in simpler terms.
Artists make graphics.
Programmers make gameplay and write handlers for graphics/display/etc.
If HD requires very little additional programming then there is no gameplay/graphics trade off.
If it does require a lot of the programming team's time, then there is a trade off.
To use your own GT example. How much of all that time needed to model the car is actually taken away from the programmer's time who makes gameplay and how much is taken from the artist's time who doesn't affect gameplay? |
Said artist needs to be paid a salary. Said salary takes away from the budget, which takes away from the programming and gameplay budgets... this means you can afford less programmers in general. Also there is a matter of priority. If you know for a fact that you arn't going to have the best graphics you have to make that up elsewhere for your bigger exclusives. |
That would be true if 360/PS3 games were constrained to the same budgets we see most Wii games made with however 360/PS3 game budgets are usually far higher (by necessity).
If it's just a matter of cost than that is a third variable in the equation and there is no direct graphics/gameplay trade off.
Assuming equal programming budgets, does having HD graphics necessarily mean that the gameplay will be that much worse? I don't know the answer to that question and I don't believe most people who assert the claim actually do either. |
Assuming equal budgets? I'd say definitly. It's harder to prove, but if you say take the same development team, clone them and have them both work on a PS3 project. One with Final Fantasy level graphics and the other with Disgaia level graphics... then show each other what the other team is working with graphically, i'd bank on the Digaia level team coming up with more innovated and out of the box ideas, which more often then not is going to lead too better gameplay.
Not to mention the fact that it's just human nature to relax when you seem to have a big advantage.
Just how if you give your average person a two tasks, one of which takes 20 minutes and another that takes 40 minutes... and if you give them an hour... those tasks are likely going to get finished a lot closer to each other then you think because it's human nature when your ahead of schedule and ahead of the game in general to slow down.
In this case, both groups are tasked to create a successful game. If the graphics are amazing, they already have a head start. Therefore it's fair to assume that your average developer is going to slow there process because they arn't going to have to do as much to succeed.
It's psychologically sound from what is known about the psychology of motivation and behavior, it's just impossible to test in a lab setting.
