Kasz216 said:
Lone_Canis_Lupus said:
Kasz216 said:
DMeisterJ said:
Sarcasm aside, I'd like to give this thread a realistic response, as if KoW was actually delusional.
There are games that look and play good. Resistance, Uncharted, CoD4, Ratchet + Clank, Gears, Mass Effect, Lost Odyssey, SMG, SSBB, etc.
You don't have to have an ugly game to be good. Great graphics and gameplay exist. |
Sure, but you can't deny that every dollar spent towards graphics is a dollar that can't be spent on things like story and gameplay. This is less troublesome for established franchises like Gran Turismo 5. However it is troublesome for new IPs and helps cause the problem of games being cookie cutter. It's why the HD consoles seem better for legacy titles where you wouldn't even want to change the gameplay. While the Wii seems better for new IPs. I mean lets take Gran Turismo it takes one designer 6 months to make a car. Gran Turismo should have like.... 700 cars at the minimium unless they cut a lot out. That's like 350 years of work for graphic designers. That's ridiculiously expensive. If Gran Turismo 5 didn't already have it's super realistic driving controls how much money would they actually have left for those? How good would those controls actually turn out? |
Of course every dollar you spend on graphics is one dollar less for gameplay. That's just physics, there's always a balance. The more water you add to a cup, the less air will be in that cup. We already know this. Does that mean we shouldn't focus on graphics at all? I mean, if we should focus on gameplay and story so much...lets just go back to text based games. To achieve the desired graphics, gameplay, and story a certain budget will just have to be met. You don't have to sacrifice one for the other. You can have great graphics and great gameplay...as well as a great story, given that you have the budget. Just because a game is going to have great graphics shouldn't mean you automatically assume the game is going to have bad gameplay. Because then, you assume there was a small budget for the game. If you know what the budget was for the developers, then I think people could better estimate how good the game is going to be. It's also more than just budget. Man power, deadline, etc. In a closed system, yes, the more you add to graphics will be less taken away from gameplay, but if you can increase budget, manpower, and push back the deadline...you can acheive the desired results. |
Once again, your putting words into my mouth. Text based games are a stupid arguement since 3-D and even 2-D gaming offer a different expierence. HD gaming doesn't offer anything substantially different from SD gaming. The the point is... people have an expectation for graphics on HD games... and the percentage of budget that goes towards graphics has increased. This becomes extra problematic when working with a new system with a new arictecture like the PS3. Had Haze or Lair not focused on graphics as much would they have been good games? Maybe, maybe not. The pedigree of the people who made the games would seem to suggest so. Adding manpower doesn't always make a better game as often times the teams can get disconnected and unfocused... and as for pushing back deadlines. Well one just needs to look at Haze again. I'd argue that the current level of HD graphics that is perceived as "needed" is a level that is too high and as such games made by everyone except for those who can afford to pump in gigantic budgets are going to suffer because of it. The big companies most people ironically bemoan about buying up smaller companies that just can't afford to do buisness anymore. Developers mostly are closed system. They only have so much money. If all things are equal except the platform, unless the budget is in the stratosphere the game has a very good chance of being better on the Wii in terms of things like gameplay. That much is inarguable... yet people still seem to want to argue it because of fanboy loyalty or something, i don't know. HD graphics don't = less fun. They equal less money spent on gameplay for no benfit unlike for example the transition to 3D. The systems made the jump one generation to soon. |
When did I say HD in my post? When did I mention the PS3? You seem to be the one putting words in my mouth now. ;) Don't let your knowledge of the system I like best this gen get in the way of the discussion.
All I said is graphics and gameplay don't have to be sacrificed for one another. I didn't say whether it was possible or not for developers to have the budget needed. I just simply said some variables need to be increased to achieve the desired result.
Also, if we're going to get into the argument about HD. It may not seem like a substantial difference to you, but to some it might be a big difference. More pixels = more detail, and more detail can equal easier game. If you're playing some shooter and you're sniping...wouldn't it be easier if the player you're sniping didn't only take up like 100 pixels? With more pixels, you would be able to see more easily in the scope and aim a lot easier in that type of game.
This doesn't really have anything to do with gaming, but higher resolution can be very useful. Telescopes capturing images of planets, stars, etc. With a higher resolution, it's easier to measure objects. With higher resolution, you get better detail. I'm not saying HD is a substantial difference like 2D and 3D were, but it isn't just for "oooohhh, pretty graphics," it can be useful.
