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

Forums - Gaming Discussion - The PS2 has taught me something about the HD era.Rant.

Eddie_Raja on 13 September 2015
fps_d0minat0r said:
Sorry but you lost me within 1 minute into the video.

"why are graphics more important than gameplay and having fun"

- only argument made by those who cant accept a lot of the best looking games in the industry have fantastic gameplay and massive followings because they are fun more than anything else.

As for the good looking ones that dont have fun gameplay, they have a lower number of players.

There is no problem, its only one created by people who like games that dont compete on graphics with good looking games that have fun gameplay.


Thank you - hit the nail on the head!  TLoU, MGSV and so many more games play incredibly well.   Sorry they are also some of the best looking games of all time.



Prediction for console Lifetime sales:

Wii:100-120 million, PS3:80-110 million, 360:70-100 million

[Prediction Made 11/5/2009]

3DS: 65m, PSV: 22m, Wii U: 18-22m, PS4: 80-120m, X1: 35-55m

I gauruntee the PS5 comes out after only 5-6 years after the launch of the PS4.

[Prediction Made 6/18/2014]

Around the Network
archer9234 on 13 September 2015
Eddie_Raja said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Sorry but you lost me within 1 minute into the video.

"why are graphics more important than gameplay and having fun"

- only argument made by those who cant accept a lot of the best looking games in the industry have fantastic gameplay and massive followings because they are fun more than anything else.

As for the good looking ones that dont have fun gameplay, they have a lower number of players.

There is no problem, its only one created by people who like games that dont compete on graphics with good looking games that have fun gameplay.


Thank you - hit the nail on the head!  TLoU, MGSV and so many more games play incredibly well.   Sorry they are also some of the best looking games of all time.

But that isn't what's in question. People are questioning the games that keep pushing graphics. But then have issues running on the hardware. Those are the ones pushing too far. And for no real good reason. It gets you hate. With the platform that it runs worse on. And for what? Since it doesn't work right now. There's no point. Make it run fine now. Then improve it in a port/remaster in the future.



DonFerrari on 13 September 2015
Guitarguy said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

PS2 era was the last true console gaming era. It was the last plug and play generation and really, plug and play is what defined the experience of console gaming. Once these consoles started having the ability to force updates, change UI, DLC, have online stores etc... they became gaming PC's with a different skin.

Imo, the PS2 era will always be the peak and end of true console gaming. After that, it became something else.


Pretty much this. Sometimes I have to wait 20+ minutes just to download the newest patch for a game before I can play it in current gen. Moments like that make it feel like a PC instead of a console. That was one of the advantages a console used to have over PC, you just insert the disk/cartridge and you were good to go.

My greatest piss of is when I download a game and after it installs it asks to download and install patches... they can't even make the version on store the latest one, they preffer to just roll the patches for digital as if they were day one physical copies. Any day we will buy game of the year editions and will have to patch for day one patches and download all the DLCs that should be on it (I bought GoW collection and most of the games I had to download, so the box was basically one game and the rest was a voucher to dowload the other games).



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

xl-klaudkil on 13 September 2015
archer9234 said:
Eddie_Raja said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
Sorry but you lost me within 1 minute into the video.

"why are graphics more important than gameplay and having fun"

- only argument made by those who cant accept a lot of the best looking games in the industry have fantastic gameplay and massive followings because they are fun more than anything else.

As for the good looking ones that dont have fun gameplay, they have a lower number of players.

There is no problem, its only one created by people who like games that dont compete on graphics with good looking games that have fun gameplay.


Thank you - hit the nail on the head!  TLoU, MGSV and so many more games play incredibly well.   Sorry they are also some of the best looking games of all time.

But that isn't what's in question. People are questioning the games that keep pushing graphics. But then have issues running on the hardware. Those are the ones pushing too far. And for no real good reason. It gets you hate. With the platform that it runs worse on. And for what? Since it doesn't work right now. There's no point. Make it run fine now. Then improve it in a port/remaster in the future.


Tlou the uncharted collection and mgs5 are prime examples that:

nr1graphics can be good but not extreme

Nr2runs amazing!!60 solid or almost solid 60fps

nr3are amazing!!!!



 

My youtube gaming page.

http://www.youtube.com/user/klaudkil

DonFerrari on 13 September 2015
KLAMarine said:
disolitude said:
PS2 was the beginning of this hype machine and graphics and presentation over gameplay bullshit. You wanna point the finger somewhere, start there...

I recall the PS1's pre-rendered cutscenes wowing audiences back in the day. I could be wrong though, it was so long ago.


I remember falling in love with FF IX and GT graphics, and everything that owed me on that era... and FF IX still look beautifull to me even this day, every now and them I watch the opening CGI.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

Around the Network
bunchanumbers on 13 September 2015

There used to be a mid tier of games that didn't have the AAA budget but were represented well in the PS2/Xbox/GCN era. I miss those games. Games like that don't happen often anymore. And even when they do, they are considered indies.



DonFerrari on 13 September 2015
Kyuu said:
jason1637 said:

On the ps2 i have played around 22.


Well that's a very small number to judge a system on. What you're calling overrated is probably not the same thing the majority of people liked. The PS2 had about 3500 games if I remember right, hundreds of which very well recieved. The great majority of them you didn't experience.


I played around 150... and I believe the number is over 5k games total, don't think I lost too much great games, but there is certainly a possibility, but at 20 games that is very insipient to say the system is overrated. Maybe he really loves one of the other systems and them he downplay PS2.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 13 September 2015
ps3-sales! said:
I agree and disagree.

I understand your point about focusing more on visuals than gameplay. Part of that is due to visuals constantly increasing; partly due to visuals selling more to the public.

The ps2/Xbox/GameCube era did seem to be the perfect mix of great satisfying gameplay and upgraded visuals that weren't too heavily focussed on.

Obviously with the move to high definition televisions around 2005 we were in for a change.

However, that does not mean that games cease to be fun. If anything that's entitely your opinion, not a fact. The 7th gen for me was much superior to the 6th gen in terms of games. Part due to my age (not being a small child) but the games were amazing.

The mass effect trilogy, bioshock, halo, assassin's creed 2, cod4, Prince of Persia 2008, last of us, I could go on and on. I had an amazing time with games that focused just as much on visuals and storytelling as they did with gameplay.

So basically, just your opinion. There are fun games out there if you know where to look. If you aren't happy, I guess you could just replay ps2 games all day.

But trust me, your refusal to move on and accept the change is isolating you from the industry. And you're really missing out on some great games.


Besides the fact that artists that work on the graphics and people working on gameplay aren't the same... so it's a little hard to say the focus was on visuals  only because the graphics progrided more than gameplay during that time.. it's like saying humanity focused on airplanes instead of cars because aircrafts gone from like 30-50mph to over 2000mph while cars evolved from like 20mph to 200mph in the same timeframe.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 13 September 2015
xl-klaudkil said:
disolitude said:

Exactly on point. Those systems tried the hype machine game but all failed as they didn;'t have the fun games to back it up. Consumers were much smarter back then.

PS2 on the other hand came out with such a rediculous amount of hype which for the first time sold consoles based on sheer hype. I bought PS2 at launch and it had absolutely no good games worth playing until 9 months post launch when Twisted Metal Black came out yet it was sold out and it outsold the competition based on future game promises and DVDs.

But dont get me wrong, PS2 was a great console when it was all said and done. I'm just pointing out that it was at that point that Sony and shortly afer Microsoft started abusing the hype train to wow people and sell preorders. The hype based business model was shortly taken over by publishers like Activision and EA who started introducing DLC and other incetives just so they could have your money in hand before the game comes out.


I agree,sometimes it feels publishers/developer's are putting more time and effort in promoting and hyping the game (destiny,watch dogs i look at you) than actually making the game.


You do know that the marketing team and dev are different people right??? So unless you have any evidence that people deving the game were denied resources to make the games so marketing could blow it, them you are just complaining at the very common pratice in all markets that is use a lot of money on marketing to make people more aware...

On the NES/SNES very few games would sell multimillions, because the base was smaller and marketing as well, but if we try to use the same narrow conclusions you want, we could say that was because they were worse.



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."

DonFerrari on 13 September 2015
archer9234 said:
fps_d0minat0r said:
xl-klaudkil said:


That's what happens if you dont watch the vid,that whas not the point.or at least not entirely.

 

Point is developers are focusing to much on graphics on gameplay and performance suffer!

 

If the developers of ac unity would have focust a lot more about making the game perform and bug free as much as possible instead of boosting about graphics the game would have been better.

 

But i gues graphics are more important.

For you at least.


That doesnt make sense at all.

In most studios, those who work on graphics dont have much say on gameplay so whether they create something beautiful or something that looks shit, it doesnt change the work the individuals who work on the games engine and gameplay elements.

Graphics are just bolt ons that can be added, removed, changed or have their quality adjusted at any time during development.

Just accept the reality, theres good looking games that are bad, theres good looking games that are good, theres bad looking games that are bad and theres bad looking games that are good. There is no correlation between how a game looks and how it plays.

There are plenty of games this gen that look incredible and have great gameplay. Get over it.

It can. Here's an example: The company goal is to make it look the best. So money is diverted to that area. A Scene requires important story element. Not enough time left. Due to time used up to build game. Scene is cut/transfered to DLC. Milked for more money. Or story no longer makes sense. A story in most cases is damaged by time restrictions. VS a lower graphics quality game, having that time availble. And no. I'm not saying to make a game look like an N64 game. You make the game upto current standard. But you don't push it.

R* is an example to this. GTA San Andreas. It was the top of the line game back when it was new. It had Widescreen support and high graphics. It didn't work all that well on PC's of that era. It took nearly a decade for PC's to handle it no problem. What's the point though? The game is 8 years old. And no one cares. Why bother pushing this then?

I seriously doubt there is less money dedicated to gampeplay today than were in previous gen. Or to level design... Yes budget escalated to cover better graphics and marketing, but that don't translate to negating money to gameplay...

Do you have any experience as dev? Or is this just hate without any backing?



duduspace11 "Well, since we are estimating costs, Pokemon Red/Blue did cost Nintendo about $50m to make back in 1996"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=8808363

Mr Puggsly: "Hehe, I said good profit. You said big profit. Frankly, not losing money is what I meant by good. Don't get hung up on semantics"

http://gamrconnect.vgchartz.com/post.php?id=9008994

Azzanation: "PS5 wouldn't sold out at launch without scalpers."