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.

Onimusha12 said: 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.

I think expense is the defining problem (more so than any perceived gameplay trade off), however I also think that as artist/design tools improve that we will see these costs reduced over time. Essentially you could see it as a painter given a small paint brush (what you would use for canvas work) and being told to paint a building with it versus having professional painter equipment. You may end up with the same result however one set of tools will be far less efficient than the other.

I don't believe that great graphics are a downfall however I do not believe that the level some companies are striving for and the standard that is quickly taking shape for PS3/360 games is financially acceptible at this time. I look forward to the relevant tools improving and game development costs for visually appealing games coming down to a more reasonable range.

the gameplay trade off is indeed arguable, but I feel it applies at least towards western developers.

Onimusha12 said: windbane said: I don't want current gen games to look like last gen games. I guess some developers play games and feel the same way. Gameplay is most important, but the power of the system changes gameplay options, just like a unique controller does. PS3/360/PC titles can sell just as well as Wii/PS2 titles based on install bases. It's just too bad that some of you didn't anticipate this third party problem earlier. I'm enjoying my Wii, but I'm glad I also have a PS3 (and possibly 360 in the future, although PC upgrade first) to enjoy the rest of the great games. It seems some of you have too high of expectations for the Wii support. PS3 fans got ridiculed on this site all year because we kept listing all the future games for the PS3. "All PS3 fanboys do is wait for games! There are no games!" and so on... However, it now appears that the Wii fanatics are waiting for the games to show up from third parties still. All I hear is wait until third parties switch development...that's something they appear to not have done yet. I like high production values to go along with my gameplay. The Wii control is great but still not the best for FPS (mouse/keyboard, which PS3 supports with UT3 and hopefully all future FPS), so it will indeed take some creative developers to push the control scheme. Whatever third parties do, I'll enjoy the games if they are fun to play. I'm just glad I'm not limited to only the Wii so I don't have to do RE5 petitions and Take Two bashing. So sad =( Let's be candid Windane, what you want is a lead console that isn't Nintendo. The excuses and reasons vary, but in the end I really wonder if fans like yourself would truly be satisfied with a Nintendo console if it had the best graphics, all the games and the best features... would that really be enough to make you happy or would you still find a reason to prefer a console that isn't Nintendo. The Wii's graphics are closer to this true standard of this generation than that of the 360 or Ps3 as the Wii at least kept within the bounds of economics and the logistics of game development. These "next gen" graphics you adore on the 360 and PS3 are not what was available to this generation, rather, they are what was forced on this generation inspite of the economic and logistical limitations which have resulted in a toll on game length, development time, development cost and most importantly the consumer with two consoles which have literally doubled the standard of console cost from last gen's $200-$300 to this gen's $400-$600. At this rate why not just buy a highly capable PC several years from now for $800-$1,200 and just call it eighth gen? Like so many others you're blind to the plateau of economics vs graphics which was reached last generation, you assume that this generation like each past must be defined by a massive graphical leap and in your earnesty to keep believing this myth (in perhaps a way similar to a child trying to maintain his belief in Santa Claus) you looked at what the Ps3 and 360 forcefully and expensively carved out of a market that would yield no more and deemed it, in your over-eagerness to believe, "true next gen". Blame the Wii for not being the peak of this generation's graphics, but don't blame it for not going as far as the 360 and PS3 in their excess. 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.

We've had these threads before, but the consoles are not much more expensive at launch than they were in previous generations. Movie tickets have gotten more expensive and so has gas. It's called inflation. Yes, the PS3 was still very expensive for a console, but it has dropped $100 since then. The 360 was about average when it comes to console launch price. The Wii is among the lowest ever because it's barely better hardware and they are technically ripping people off.

I'm not sure why you think I'm anti-Nintendo. The first videogame system I ever had was an NES. I moved on to SNES and loved Nintendo for 10 years. I followed Square to PS1, but had I been who I am now I probably would have also gotten an N64, which wasn't cheap. However, I was still young so I settled for 1 system and ended up favoring the most dominate system ever, the PS2. To say I just don't want Nintendo to succeed is assuming an awful lot about me. I own a Wii, you know.

The simple fact is that every generation the hardware improves. Games improve, they get more impressive with visuals, sound, online, story-telling, etc. The whole point of a new generation of consoles is to improve the hardware. If you aren't improving the hardware, why buy a new system? Why didn't Nintendo just release a motion controller for the Gamecube? The biggest reason was public perception and a slight graphical increase. Other than that, the Gamecube doesn't lack much that the Wii has.

Instead of upgrading the hardware to the new era, Nintendo went a different route and changed the controller. You know what? It's a great idea and obviously it's paying off. However, had they pushed the hardware to near PS3/360 level, they would currently be receiving every third party multi-platform game for the Wii along with the unique games.

Maybe the budget difference for games is worth not pushing the hardware, but I also want every other facet of a game to improve. The PS3 already has motion and is just lacking a pointer, except that a mouse can serve as that. The 360 could easily add a controller like they have done with scene it. I know, I Know, people will say the controller will only work if it's bundled with a system, but I think Guitar Hero, Rock Band, and every game that requires a classic controller and/or gamecube controller are doing just fine.

It's funny that PS3 and/or 360 games could easily support a pointer with motion along with classic controls. If you want the better controls you'd have to get the Wiimote-like controller (Sixaxis is already halfway there), but the classic controls would also be supported. What does that sound like? Oh yeah, Super Smash Bros. Brawl, which will force you to have the classic or gamecube controller to get the most out of.

Anyway, I'm not against Nintendo, I just wish they would have pushed the hardware more like every new generation is supposed to, imo. But again, I have a Wii, so it's not like I'm rooting against it.  I am not rooting for Sony, Nintendo, or Microsoft to have financial success; I'm just hoping for better games.  I don't care if budgets are smaller.  I don't care who's stock is higher.  I want games to impress me in all ways.  Right now, I think you need at least 2 systems to get the most out of videogames.

Manhunt flopped on the wii hard very very hard..

Why would they port GTA? Since 80% of its audicence is kids?

leo-j said: Manhunt flopped on the wii hard very very hard.. Why would they port GTA? Since 80% of its audicence is kids?

I know only immature people play GTA, but I doubt 80% of its audience is children ... Oh, you were refering to the Wii ...

 

One thing assumptions like this miss is that (unlike most consoles) the Wii actually gets used by most people in the household where it is owned, and it is not just a toy for a couple of members in the house. The motivating factor for buying a Wii may have been that the Grandmother, Grandfather, Mother, Father, Daughter or Son may have wanted one for one game in particular, but that doesn't mean that the other members of a family wouldn't be interested in playing a game on the Wii.

With Manhunt in particular though, it simply isn't that good of a game as demonstrated by its poor sales on the PS2 ... Or is the PS2 also only for the 'Kiddiez' leo?

leo-j said: Manhunt flopped on the wii hard very very hard.. Why would they port GTA? Since 80% of its audicence is kids?

Do you have a link proving that statistic? 

leo-j said: Manhunt flopped on the wii hard very very hard.. Why would they port GTA? Since 80% of its audicence is kids?

 I find it hilarious every time leo-j makes comments like these since HE IS A KID himself and therefore mocking himself.  Btw, Manhunt flopped just as bad on the PS2, you know why?  Cause it was a crappy game.  

Lair pretty much flopped on the PS3, does that mean 80% of its audience hate graphic intensive dragon flying games? 

 

leo-j said: Manhunt flopped on the wii hard very very hard.. Why would they port GTA? Since 80% of its audicence is kids?

I don't think Take Two is in the posistion to be laughing at anyone given their latest financial report.