sethnintendo said:
I think you should just have your paragraph in notepad so you can copy/paste it for every graphics thread instead of having to type it every time. The middle paragraph is probably the most compelling for the arguement. If development cost were x2-4 for the next generation then even more developers/publishers would go out of business when compared to this generation. We would probably be left with just EA, Activision, and a few others ditacting the smaller developers into publishing sequel after sequel (due to them not wanting to take new idea risks). Basically the gaming industry would turn fully into a Hollywood mentality.
|
Actually no...this can only be a valid argument for console gamer.
Game development tools are advancing a great deal and budgets while still high, don't need to be so massive to achieve impressive visuals. Only when you have consoles which are underpowered and developers are set in providing visually impressive game and have to push every ounce of horsepower can you run in to massive budgets due to graphics.
Otherwise if you take something middle of the road on consoles like Battlefield Bad Company 2 and look at the PC version, using DX11, and tessalation and full HD resolution at 60 frames per second...it spanks Uncharted 2, Killzone 3 or whatever else consoles can muster in terms of visuals...yet it doesn't have to cost an arm an a leg.
What I am trying to say is -
Great hardware, game engine and dev tools = great graphics
and
great graphics/= high budget costs