Onimusha12 said: Blame the Wii for not having enough storage space, but don't blame it for not banking on a harddrive, a device which would have significantly shortened its lifespan and given developers liscence to rush games with the promise of patches to fix problems in the future.

I thought I was the only one who could see this problem!

 

Nintendownsmii said: Onimusha12 said: Blame the Wii for not having enough storage space, but don't blame it for not banking on a harddrive, a device which would have significantly shortened its lifespan and given developers liscence to rush games with the promise of patches to fix problems in the future. I thought I was the only one who could see this problem!

You are.


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?

Words Of Wisdom said: Nintendownsmii said: Onimusha12 said: Blame the Wii for not having enough storage space, but don't blame it for not banking on a harddrive, a device which would have significantly shortened its lifespan and given developers liscence to rush games with the promise of patches to fix problems in the future. I thought I was the only one who could see this problem! You are. 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.

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?

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.

Yep, they Wii will never push mature games like GTA and Guitar Hero 3.

By the way, does anyone know where I can find another copy of Guitar Hero 3? It seems to be sold out everywhere for the Wii.

TheBigFatJ said: Yep, they Wii will never push mature games like GTA and Guitar Hero 3. By the way, does anyone know where I can find another copy of Guitar Hero 3? It seems to be sold out everywhere for the Wii.

They had like 3-5 at the Best Buy near me. Of course they had atleast a dozen of every other guitar hero game as well. Atleast I think they were the Wii ones. I really didn't look too hard. The ones with the white sides are the wii ones right?

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.

Honestly,... I don't give a sh*t about GTA

Well said Ona, but earning that game's fanbase would be a mjaor asset to any console.

Words of Wisdom you raise a valid argument, however the only difference between development for the Wii and 360/PS3 is the size of the budget, not the formula or structure of development.

As for Artists, Programers are these artists you speak of, graphics must be programmed, coded specifically, dealing with Lighting, Texuring, polygons, modeling, weighing the numbers of polygons on the screen at any given time, etc.

But still this must illude your question. Allow me to directly adress it. You have to understand, its not just higher graphics that are the issue here, its higher graphics that supercede the threshold of the current economy and development infrastructure. You're forcing an industry to make more expensive and graphically powerful games yet still be released at a competitive pace. Something has got to give in this equation. Graphics are the paramount priority in this equation, they don't necessaraly make the game, but without them the game isn't visually a "next gen game", it can't brag up impressive screenshots, it can't excite the hardcore crowd.

Only with Japanese developers do we really see the kind of structure you speak of where artists and game designers exist independently, Western developers have a far less organized infrastructure and much smaller development teams where individuals are expected to be multi-taskers instead of specialists meaning your developers are typicaly juggling various aspects of the game at once.