By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Nintendo - 3DS being supported for the specs is a bad reason.

freebs2 on 08 October 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
freebs2 said:

I agree with some of what you say, but I'm more optimistic for 2 reasons

1st-I don't think that 3DS, it's powerful enough to make developers spend all of their finacial resources on graphic development, like nintendo said by itself (I don't remember if it was Iwata or someone else) the developing costs of 3DS can approach the one of a Wii game, (not a Ps3/X360 game),

2nd- On 3DS developers don't have to produce stunning graphics at all costs, look at the new Professor Layton for example, it doesn't look so different form the original one on DS or Kingdom Hearts which is not very different form the ps2 game. My point is that on HD consoles, the high graphic quality and the online were the added value of the consoles since the beginning (I'm talking about the hardwere), so the games on them have to reflect that value, you can't make a game on Ps3 with Ps2-like graphics, you won't sell. On DS, it is different, the actual user base has not bought the system for graphics, but for its games and accessibility, and this thing hasn't changed with 3DS, even thoght its graphics are really improved, accessibility remains a key-value, in fact it will be easier and more intuitive to use than the original DS, thank to the use of the motion sensor,gyroscope, the cameras, and 3D itself which gives better perception of distances and depht in 3D games. In the Love plus trailer for example there is an interesting example about how using motion controls to make camera controls more intuitive (about 0:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-khobY1H2KE


While I agree on a lot of your points, the God of War collection doesn't really increase the graphics that much, and sold well, because the first two games are solid, even compared to games with far more detailed visuals.

So a game with good art direction, that doesn't try to wow us with the visuals but with good talent, can still appeal even to the HD system crowd.

True, I also think that the artistc design of game in VERY much more important than the raw number of polygons or texture resolution, but only a few gamers can tell the difference. GOW collection it's not a good example. those were allready very famous games when it was lauched, If you consider the hypothesis of an equally good new IP, or GOW3 whith the same graphics it wouldn't have sold so well I guess. Also even art direction costs, now it is old for today standards  but GOW was originaly designed to wow with the visuals



Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 08 October 2010
freebs2 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
freebs2 said:

I agree with some of what you say, but I'm more optimistic for 2 reasons

1st-I don't think that 3DS, it's powerful enough to make developers spend all of their finacial resources on graphic development, like nintendo said by itself (I don't remember if it was Iwata or someone else) the developing costs of 3DS can approach the one of a Wii game, (not a Ps3/X360 game),

2nd- On 3DS developers don't have to produce stunning graphics at all costs, look at the new Professor Layton for example, it doesn't look so different form the original one on DS or Kingdom Hearts which is not very different form the ps2 game. My point is that on HD consoles, the high graphic quality and the online were the added value of the consoles since the beginning (I'm talking about the hardwere), so the games on them have to reflect that value, you can't make a game on Ps3 with Ps2-like graphics, you won't sell. On DS, it is different, the actual user base has not bought the system for graphics, but for its games and accessibility, and this thing hasn't changed with 3DS, even thoght its graphics are really improved, accessibility remains a key-value, in fact it will be easier and more intuitive to use than the original DS, thank to the use of the motion sensor,gyroscope, the cameras, and 3D itself which gives better perception of distances and depht in 3D games. In the Love plus trailer for example there is an interesting example about how using motion controls to make camera controls more intuitive (about 0:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-khobY1H2KE


While I agree on a lot of your points, the God of War collection doesn't really increase the graphics that much, and sold well, because the first two games are solid, even compared to games with far more detailed visuals.

So a game with good art direction, that doesn't try to wow us with the visuals but with good talent, can still appeal even to the HD system crowd.

True, I also think that the artistc design of game in VERY much more important than the raw number of polygons or texture resolution, but only a few gamers can tell the difference. GOW collection it's not a good example. those were allready very famous games when it was lauched, If you consider the hypothesis of an equally good new IP, or GOW3 whith the same graphics it wouldn't have sold so well I guess. Also even art direction costs, now it is old for today standards  but GOW was originaly designed to wow with the visuals


The problem is that assumption has no evidence then. We need a major game on the system to be released with those graphics, but without brand recognition, and then flop, or else the assumption is baseless. Plus what if a game sells well with those things? That would mean even the HD system owners aren't into graphics as much as people think.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

freebs2 on 08 October 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
freebs2 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
freebs2 said:

I agree with some of what you say, but I'm more optimistic for 2 reasons

1st-I don't think that 3DS, it's powerful enough to make developers spend all of their finacial resources on graphic development, like nintendo said by itself (I don't remember if it was Iwata or someone else) the developing costs of 3DS can approach the one of a Wii game, (not a Ps3/X360 game),

2nd- On 3DS developers don't have to produce stunning graphics at all costs, look at the new Professor Layton for example, it doesn't look so different form the original one on DS or Kingdom Hearts which is not very different form the ps2 game. My point is that on HD consoles, the high graphic quality and the online were the added value of the consoles since the beginning (I'm talking about the hardwere), so the games on them have to reflect that value, you can't make a game on Ps3 with Ps2-like graphics, you won't sell. On DS, it is different, the actual user base has not bought the system for graphics, but for its games and accessibility, and this thing hasn't changed with 3DS, even thoght its graphics are really improved, accessibility remains a key-value, in fact it will be easier and more intuitive to use than the original DS, thank to the use of the motion sensor,gyroscope, the cameras, and 3D itself which gives better perception of distances and depht in 3D games. In the Love plus trailer for example there is an interesting example about how using motion controls to make camera controls more intuitive (about 0:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-khobY1H2KE


While I agree on a lot of your points, the God of War collection doesn't really increase the graphics that much, and sold well, because the first two games are solid, even compared to games with far more detailed visuals.

So a game with good art direction, that doesn't try to wow us with the visuals but with good talent, can still appeal even to the HD system crowd.

True, I also think that the artistc design of game in VERY much more important than the raw number of polygons or texture resolution, but only a few gamers can tell the difference. GOW collection it's not a good example. those were allready very famous games when it was lauched, If you consider the hypothesis of an equally good new IP, or GOW3 whith the same graphics it wouldn't have sold so well I guess. Also even art direction costs, now it is old for today standards  but GOW was originaly designed to wow with the visuals


The problem is that assumption has no evidence then. We need a major game on the system to be released with those graphics, but without brand recognition, and then flop, or else the assumption is baseless. Plus what if a game sells well with those things? That would mean even the HD system owners aren't into graphics as much as people think.


Yes, you are right, but I what I told you, is what logic brought me to think, not that it is truth or it is right, the fact that many developers are caring more to produce flashy games than great ones is a proof that they are thinking in the same way. Developers are still enterprises, when they start working on a new project, they also think at how make safe draws from it (call greediness, or simply prudence for economic survival). I guess you agree that as it is today on HD consoles it's more safe to produce a graphic diamond, which is 8h long, than a 50h long game with ps2-like graphics.



Smidlee on 08 October 2010

Art costs no matter the specs. Better hardcore allows to display the art more fully. This is why some PS2 games look better with better hardware even without redoing the artwork.  A pc game running at 1080p looks better than 640x480.



LordTheNightKnight on 08 October 2010
freebs2 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
freebs2 said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
freebs2 said:

I agree with some of what you say, but I'm more optimistic for 2 reasons

1st-I don't think that 3DS, it's powerful enough to make developers spend all of their finacial resources on graphic development, like nintendo said by itself (I don't remember if it was Iwata or someone else) the developing costs of 3DS can approach the one of a Wii game, (not a Ps3/X360 game),

2nd- On 3DS developers don't have to produce stunning graphics at all costs, look at the new Professor Layton for example, it doesn't look so different form the original one on DS or Kingdom Hearts which is not very different form the ps2 game. My point is that on HD consoles, the high graphic quality and the online were the added value of the consoles since the beginning (I'm talking about the hardwere), so the games on them have to reflect that value, you can't make a game on Ps3 with Ps2-like graphics, you won't sell. On DS, it is different, the actual user base has not bought the system for graphics, but for its games and accessibility, and this thing hasn't changed with 3DS, even thoght its graphics are really improved, accessibility remains a key-value, in fact it will be easier and more intuitive to use than the original DS, thank to the use of the motion sensor,gyroscope, the cameras, and 3D itself which gives better perception of distances and depht in 3D games. In the Love plus trailer for example there is an interesting example about how using motion controls to make camera controls more intuitive (about 0:50)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-khobY1H2KE


While I agree on a lot of your points, the God of War collection doesn't really increase the graphics that much, and sold well, because the first two games are solid, even compared to games with far more detailed visuals.

So a game with good art direction, that doesn't try to wow us with the visuals but with good talent, can still appeal even to the HD system crowd.

True, I also think that the artistc design of game in VERY much more important than the raw number of polygons or texture resolution, but only a few gamers can tell the difference. GOW collection it's not a good example. those were allready very famous games when it was lauched, If you consider the hypothesis of an equally good new IP, or GOW3 whith the same graphics it wouldn't have sold so well I guess. Also even art direction costs, now it is old for today standards  but GOW was originaly designed to wow with the visuals


The problem is that assumption has no evidence then. We need a major game on the system to be released with those graphics, but without brand recognition, and then flop, or else the assumption is baseless. Plus what if a game sells well with those things? That would mean even the HD system owners aren't into graphics as much as people think.


Yes, you are right, but I what I told you, is what logic brought me to think, not that it is truth or it is right, the fact that many developers are caring more to produce flashy games than great ones is a proof that they are thinking in the same way. Developers are still enterprises, when they start working on a new project, they also think at how make safe draws from it (call greediness, or simply prudence for economic survival). I guess you agree that as it is today on HD consoles it's more safe to produce a graphic diamond, which is 8h long, than a 50h long game with ps2-like graphics.


I don't agree with that. I just see developers assume that is the case. In fact, since those diamonds are not cheap, and so many developers lost money, I'd say it's less safe.

A huge, sprawling game, with PS2 graphics, could still work on those, and the world could be larger than Fallout 3, and still cost less due to less detail in any one object (just there would be a hell of a lot of them).



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Around the Network
LordTheNightKnight on 08 October 2010
Smidlee said:

Art costs no matter the specs. Better hardcore allows to display the art more fully. This is why some PS2 games look better with better hardware even without redoing the artwork.  A pc game running at 1080p looks better than 640x480.


Smoother, yes, but the art direction is the same, so it cannot be better unless you really don't like them to look rough, but that's a personal preference, not the value of the art direction.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs

Zlejedi on 08 October 2010

It's kinda of funny how our VGC programing and graphic experts always tell you that higher specs must mean huge increase in costs but noone never even stops to think how much it must cost to squezy every last frame per second from badly limited system.

But ok if you guys belive countless hours spent on testing then optimizing then testing then optimising then....     are free be my guests.



PROUD MEMBER OF THE PSP RPG FAN CLUB

--OkeyDokey-- on 08 October 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:
LordTheNightKnight said:
--OkeyDokey-- said:

LOL! The 3DS will still be the weakest platform in it's generation. Ain't no one gonna choose it for its specs.

You're right about those stupid devs though. How dare they want more freedom!(1) How dare they not want to have to deal with hardware limitations!(2) *rollseyes*

1. Calling the specs freedom? You think specs are the only thing limiting a game? Are you seriously thinking that budget doesn't also constrain development?

Or that just shows you also think throwing money at a game is just a trivial matter, which is also what my points include.

2. Do you even realize that means every system in existence will have limitations? Only a system with infinite specs cannot have limitations.

Plus you're falling for the fallacy of limitations being the same thing as stifling creativity. You obviously never heard of all the great artists who say constrants actually equal better quality, as it gives them quidelines to work, and allows them to be more creative by seeing how well they can work within those boundries.

...

wat


You, like many game developers, are falling for the notion that more specs means more freedom and creativity.

A modern example of why this is not so is Jaws. If they had the shark model working all the time, it would have been a cheesy monster movie instead of the triumph of suspense it was.

Or Star Wars. Lucas couldn't make the films he wanted, but the films he was forced to make are still hailed as some of the best ever, with the special editions, and especially the prequels, being vastly inferior.

Then there is gaming itself. Sales of games have not increased to match the increases in budgets, development times, and graphics. And those sales are from the people that were here the last few generations, so it's not that they don't get these games. They seriously don't think the games being made now are not that much better than the games made a generation or so ago, or the games would have sold better.

Thus the freedom for better graphics does not make better games (not counting reviews, as they are part of the vocal minority).

I honestly don't know what you're ranting about.

Oh noez, you'll have to sit through pretty games! Poor you. At any rate it's better than getting rail shooters and shitty spin offs of spin offs *Crystal Bearers waves*

Like it or not:

MGS3 on the DS = ew
MGS3 on the 3DS = yes please!

The majority will agree.



freebs2 on 08 October 2010
LordTheNightKnight said:


I don't agree with that. I just see developers assume that is the case. In fact, since those diamonds are not cheap, and so many developers lost money, I'd say it's less safe.

A huge, sprawling game, with PS2 graphics, could still work on those, and the world could be larger than Fallout 3, and still cost less due to less detail in any one object (just there would be a hell of a lot of them).

Ops...I was wring and in error I backspaced everything...:D. Now I have to go sorry,  but if you want to continue in another moment send me a message



LordTheNightKnight on 08 October 2010

"I honestly don't know what you're ranting about."

"Oh noez, you'll have to sit through pretty games! Poor you."

You don't know what I mean, but assume that's my problem anyway? If you're going to be snarky in response, you should make sure it's the right response first, and you clearly didn't do that.



A flashy-first game is awesome when it comes out. A great-first game is awesome forever.

Plus, just for the hell of it: Kelly Brook at the 2008 BAFTAs