| DMeisterJ said: Gosh, here we go again, say anything bad about Nintendo, here come the fanboys. Nintendo didn't get my vision either. Is it too much to ask for good graphics, and good gameplay? And not have to choose? Uncharted, Ratchet and Clank, Bioshock, Mass Effect, and Gran Turismo 5 seem to disagree. I will admit that nintendo got the whole fameplay thing down, but these games go to show that you can have a game that looks good, and plays good also. And I do not believe that any game on the Wii can come any where close (graphically) to the games I mentioned. |
Except of course, you do have to choose. The cost of development increases significantly as the graphics get more realistic. Why do games take so long to make nowadays? Why are publishers less willing to take risks, and end up releasing more of the same? Because innovation is risky, and nobody wants to take any risks when your game cost 50+ million to make. Every game you mentioned is pretty much the same thing as a game we've seen before in a previous generation with prettier graphics. The only one that was even a little risky there was Bioshock, and that's just System Shock 2 in space, with less features and better graphics. GT5 took forever to make. I have to disagree with you on Mass Effect too: It is IMO the weakest Bioware game since the original Baldur's gate, and the pop-in, crappy interface, and awful self-shadows make me wish for KoToR.
Good graphics are relative too: People actually liked the Playstation's graphics, while today I dare anyone to actually enjoy going through Silent Hill's pixellated mess. But some older games do survive the test of time, because the graphics are good enough to convey the gameplay. Look at Symphony of the Night. Or Chrono Trigger. Mario 64. Sonic. I still play them today, because the graphics just work. Would Desktop Tower Defense be a better game with better graphics? No way.
A cheap game is also more likely to be fun, because it's easier to tweak late in the game, after the art assets are very advanced. I see them as mass that forces the design team to stay the course: it makes change harder. Less realistic graphics also allow games to be longer without being repetitive, if just for budget reasons. Go try to pull off the 'reverse castle' trick in a 3d castlevania. Adding enemies is expensive. Adding voiceover dialog is expensive.
Remember how Metal Gear Solid 2, Gran Turismo and GTA were out before the PS2's second christmas? The newer incarnations of the series aren't out yet, precisely because of those extra graphics of yours. Consoles are taking longer to mature than they ever had. Releasing a game less than 2 years away from getting an almost finished SDK is asking for trouble, and at this rate, in the next generation it'll be 3 years, or we'll need teams of 300 for your average game.
Graphics ARE killing the industry. You just don't know it yet.
