By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
Hynad on 07 November 2010
Edit Thread
richardhutnik said:
CGI-Quality said:
richardhutnik said:
 


It becomes relevant when the DEVELOPER of a game that is interactive fiction, and going for a movie-like experience, ends up bringing up boardgames.  I speak to the MENTALITY.  It is this mentality which does lead to an arms race to increase costs to try to capture the movie experience more.  It does have an impact, and to show why would take up too much space here at this time.  Again, show how the videogame industry isn't trying to morph itself into the movie industry on the upper end in what they are doing in the AAA front.  And then, if they are, go and show how this isn't a problem for the bottom line.

Until video game industry tanks, as it nearly did in the 80's, I'm not seeing the "big problem". So you can keep shifting the topic all you like. He didn't bring up boardgames". He compared the differences of two consoles and mentioned one is "more like" a board game.

Money, expenses, bankruptcy and all other off-topic extremities are just your way of changing the subject, and in the process, claiming that Cage is "contributing to the decline of video games". Yet, all you've given are theories, NOT anything solid that movie-like experiences, which are a rarity at this point, are suddenly the "downfall" of video games. Yes, some devs have gone under, but can you prove that experiences (particularly the types that Cage develops) are the culprits? I'm willing to be that you cannot.

All of that is irrelevant until these problems show real issues. Since YOU have the burden of proof, being that the claim is yours, provide some facts that the industry has a problem because of "David Cage-like experiences".

So, you now on a witch hunt to correct every single person in this thread who has taken a dump, FAR WORSE than anything I ever said about Heavy Rain, in this thread?  The real issue is this: The videogame industry, in attempting to increase production costs to make things more epic and aspiring itself to be more like the movie industry (without having a thing called BOX OFFICE to recover costs) is putting itself on a road to potential ruin.  You can say that I am daft and say I am wrong, but go and look it up.  I don't believe an early 80s crash is going to happen, but I believe contraction is definitely a possibility here, unless the industry decides to pursue other avenues that provide entertainment at a lower costs.  Nintendo had done just that, and look at who had been the most profitable of all the companies?  The drive for motion control and games people bash here (stuff seen as toys) are also something that helps.  The funding of indie games to, and digital downloads and lower costs, are another factor involved.

Want me to do a dump of articles that speak to what I am saying?  Well, here we go...

http://www.slate.com/id/2210732/

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13506_3-10188950-17.html

http://www.mcvuk.com/news/39087/Comte-Games-pricing-must-change

http://www.next-gen.biz/news/namco-videogames-are-too-expensive

 

http://www.computerandvideogames.com/article.php?id=255016

http://destructoid.com/games-need-to-cost-more-to-survive-says-chris-deering-142231.phtml

(So retailer say they cost to much, but those producing content says it isn't enough. NOT good)

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/30/technology/30game.html

 

I could go on here.  But, in short, the videogame industry can't afford to pattern itself after Hollywood.  Do you want me to google even more articles on this?  By the way, if you want to google, look at how sales of software for consoles is going:

http://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&channel=s&hl=en&source=hp&q=sales down videogame software&btnG=Google Search

Downward trend going on.

I take issues with people who claim that shooting for better graphics and cost of production of games is what is causing the downfall of the medium.

First, I think it's really hypocritical of Nintendo's fans to mention the issue of graphics. Partcularly after seeing them time and time again complain about the art style that Nintendo is choosing for their next Zelda games.  Wind Waker and Skyward Sword being the 2 best examples by the way they polarised the fans by their looks only.  Wind Waker was not made a bad game by its visuals.  Core gameplay remained completely Zelda and was in fact a big improvement in polish from what had come before, even if the series didn't make such a big leap forward since Ocarina of Time.  My problem here is that you complain that graphics are not what is important to a game, yet throw a fit when a game like Zelda uses a cartoon look when in the end, the gameplay is just the same it would have been had it used a more marute look, like it's the case with Twilight Princess which had the same core gameplay all around.

Then comes the issue of the production costs.  Some of you seems to fail to see or understand that it's not only the vision of the producers that isin play here, but also the demand from the consumers to play ever more realistic games.  Although the Wii managed to bring a lot of new gamers in, with different tastes and habits, the gamers who've been into the kind of gaming that has been there since the beginning (the usual gameplay styles that most of us here enjoy) are indeed asking for more intricate and realistic gaming experiences. 

Graphics don't make a game better as far as the gameplay mechanics are concerned, but they do achieve a better immersion in many types of games especially if they're played in the first person, or in the case of Heavy Rain, graphics adds the realism required to give the emotional impact that the producers were aiming for.  Graphics may not be the be all end all of what makes a game good or bad, but for many types of games, they help put the playing in the shoes of its protagonists better than they would for games like Kirby or Mario where the aim of the games just isn't the same.