RolStoppable said:
freebs2 said:
Well for describing my post as "illogical mess" I'd say your argument shows some fallacy as well.
The first sentence is factually wrong. If you want to create a great looking title on the current Switch with detailed enviroments and while aiming for 60fps (just like older titles) you'll need to spend time and money to squeeze any hardware resource avaliable on the system. With a new machine you could get a drastically better result even with much less effort for polishing finer details and optimizations.
Secondly, you're implying the series would need to be "watered down" to reach a wider audience and that's totally an invention of yours based on no actual arguments. Nintendo just successfully renovated the Zelda series for example. Is BOTW a watered down Zelda experience? Did they lost the original fanbase while not reaching anyone new? Doesn't seem like it to me. Also you refer to "that kind of average player"...what does that even mean? you don't specificy what kind are you referring to. Maybe you mean a kind of player that is influenced by the look of a game? Because every player is to a degree and even Nintendo itself acknowledge this...otherwise it wouldn't make much sense for them to put so much effort to make games like Zelda or 3D Mario look great.
Yes, graphics were a selling point of Metroid Prime as a series. Prime 1 and 2 are not even up to debate and Prime 3 proves the point even further, in fact it was supposed to be the best selling entry in the series as it got a greater marketing push from Nintendo and it was released on a console far more popular than the Gamecube. Yet it did sell cosiderably less than Prime 1. The difference is that, in 2002, if you looked for an immersive 1st person experience Metroid Prime was the state of the art, in 2007 Prime 3 couldn't be even put up for comparison with contempoary games like Bioshock (which btw was released within the same week).
Also the fact you aren't differenciating between Prime and 2D Metroid games doesn't make much sense either. Just like between 2D and 3D Mario or between top down and 3D Zelda, the expectations are completely different. Metroid Dread is a 2D side scrolling game, so it gets compared with other side scrolling 2D games. Metroid Prime is a first person game and (for a relevant part) a shooter, so it naturally gets compared with other first person shooters.
And btw Nintendo actually did put a lot of effort to make Dread look good while aiming for 60fps, much more effort compared to what they do for other series with broader appeal like Fire Emblem (for example) and let's not even talk about Pokemon. So I guess they do think good graphics is one of the selling point of Metroid.
|
Game development costs for next gen hardware do not get cheaper, they have to be expected to at least double. While it would be easier to get the same graphical fidelity to run on newer hardware, that's not what your original point was about. You wanted graphics to be a selling point, so the increased possibilities of next gen hardware would have to be used, resulting in significantly higher development costs than on Switch. Therefore increased risk to justify the development costs.
"That kind of average player" is exactly what you described in your own post as "'Very good for Switch' is not good enough to inpress an average player after 8 years of PS4 and 1 year of PS5." It describes a type of gamer who cares a lot more about the superficial things than what game it is, which is what leads you to your conclusion that these gamers wouldn't bother with Metroid Prime 4 due to its graphics on Switch. This is about gamers who look at games as sightseeing tours, so maze-like level design where the game doesn't hold your hand to get through the whole game and view everything doesn't match with their expectations.
The examples you mention for good-looking Nintendo games (3D Mario and Zelda) are at odds with what your initial argument was about. You have to recognize that Breath of the Wild and Super Mario Odyssey did not have impressive graphics when they came out; BotW released shortly after Horizon Zero Dawn which lines up with another comparison of yours: Metroid Prime 3 vs. Bioshock. Yet BotW's sales weren't held back because of graphics, nor were SMO's because the PS4 had Ratchet & Clank. You can't argue that these Nintendo games were still okay in 2017, but not now anymore; after all, these same Nintendo games have still sold great in 2021. That's why Metroid Prime 4 being a Switch game shouldn't be a problem at all, because the importance you put on graphics is misguided to begin with.
Lastly, there's a difference between making good-looking games and using graphics as a selling point. Metroid Dread had effort put into it, but Nintendo's sales pitch for the game wasn't "look at how great this game looks" or "look at all these fine details." Nintendo is past this thing, most likely because it doesn't work for them. Donkey Kong's fur and Bayonetta's hair on the Wii U weren't of as much interest as Nintendo thought; Metroid Prime on the GC didn't boost hardware and software numbers to an appreciable degree; the Nintendo 64 was a distant second to the PS1 despite its far more potent hardware for 3D games. But just because graphics won't be the standout feature for Nintendo games in the present and future doesn't mean that the games' looks are irrelevant. Visually pleasing is the goal, and that's a goal that can be easily accomplished on Switch.
|
Wanted to reply earlier but this has been a quite busy period...
Perhaps, I was too focused on replying point by point that meaning of what I meant was kinda lost in the process.
I've never intended to say graphics is normally a selling point of Nintendo games. But, if you look back at my original post, I meant the Metroid Prime series specifically imo has been quite an outlier for this matter, and even there I don't intend to say graphics has been the main selling point of the trilogy (of course not) but it has been very relevant factor.
What I meant, more generally, is that graphics is relevant even for Nintendo and more specifically expectations in terms of graphics of the target audience. You pointed out the difference between BOTW and Horizon...and that's actually a good example of what I'm implying...Twilight Princess, a game developed during the Gamecube lifecycle or in other words when Nintendo was still in the "arms race", was the last in the series to ever use "pseudo-realistic" graphics artstyle. Why is that? If you looked back at the series in 2008 it was quite clear that the "pseudo-realistic" look was more popular among fans yet Nintendo decided to go in a different direction.
The reason is that by adopting a unique art style they set the series apart and avoided any direct comparisons with other otherwise potentially comparable games. Leave alone late "console warriors", but the general consensus is that BOTW is a fantastic looking game and that's because there are very few examples of games attempting a similar artstyle....and even among those none is realized in a drastically superior way. So it actually kinda raised the bar in terms of graphical expectations in its own way. Again, leave alone "console warriors", but even after playing Horizon no one would say BOTW looks bad, it's different.
To a smaller degree this applies also to Mario since all 3D Mario games have a quite distinctive look and feel as well....but mostly this is an out of context example, since Mario is so popular and unique in design that it is not exactly the kind of game that needs to out in the crowd.
For Metroid Prime (a pseudo-realistic looking, immersive 1st person sci-fi game) graphics expectations are higher since there are lots thematically comparable games on other platforms. A new player, meaning someone who hasn't played a game the series yet, will (consciously or unconsciously) draw comparisons. So, unless they are planning to change the artstyle into something less realistic (like No Man's Sky for example), I think the Switch technical limitations could be a limiting factor in attracting new players to the series.
That view about "gamers who look at games as sightseeing tours" is kind of an outdated and one-dimensional way to look at things. It's not too different from that old popular view of dividing players into "enlightened" hardcore gamers who play serious games on PS3/X360, and "ignorant" casual Wii players moving to smartphones hence declaring the end for Nintendo.
A player can be attracted by both immersive graphics and maze-like level designs and while the former tends to be noticed more quickly while the latter quality naturally takes more time to emerge. Not meeting general expectations on a key point of the value proposition may not be enough to lead to failure but it may certainly be a detriment for the success of the game.
That said, I trust Retro to make an excellent product regardless of the target platform but I also wish they'll also put a lot of effort to expand the audience as I would be happy not to wait other 15 years for the next installment in the series.
Last edited by freebs2 - on 11 February 2022
