twesterm said:
For the vast majority of games (this doesn't apply to like 4 games in every game made) gameplay is the reason you buy it. If gameplay wasn't a factor you would just go see a movie. Actually (if the developer knows what they're doing), when creating a game they generally make everything a block or collection of blocks and spheres with flat textures that has the same number of poly's as the intended character and then create the base gameplay. They then create a white box or blockout or whatever you would like to call it where everything is pretty much gray, yellow, and other single colors like that to represent destroyable walls, roads, golden paths, exits, events, ect. Using all that they then make the game fun. After they get the game to a point where it's fun just playing with a bunch of blocks only then do they actually start working on the art. And saying the last time there was gameplay innovation before the Wii was the PS1 and Super Mario 64 is just...well apparently I can't say what that is without getting bitched at but just look at the post you're referring to. People make things with increasingly better graphics simply because they can. The bright and flashy ZOMG graphics and art style grabs peoples attention while the gameplay will actually keep them playing. Now what's interesting, since you mentioned the Wii, is that generally games have been following the Moore's law idea where everything must keep getting better and better graphics wise and has really pressed developers. Every time a new Madden gets released or something like Lair gets released they have to at least meet the new bar or else get ridiculed. With the Wii, things have suddenly taken a step backwards (which was an incredibly bold idea) and people are actually supporting this like crazy and going against the Moore's law idea. And yes OriGin, I like your picture and saying you think a game is going to flop isn't trolling, saying something like OMG u all r teh stoopid fr thinking liar is gonna du well it gonna sell 5 copy!!! LOL is trolling. |
I really went in the wrong direction with my OP, I meant more that the art not graphics has just as much to do with why people buy games as does game play (not necessarily graphics).
I agree, I buy games based on gameplay. But I am talking about Joe Casual Gamebuyer, who buys one or two games a year buys it on really 3 main things: Advertising, buzz, or popularity(1) and what he has read or heard about Gameplay (2) and Graphics, art style, or Theme (3). Whether it's Madden or a movie license, dragons or a certain anime, these three things pretty much sum up why casual to core gamers (not the hard core) buy games.
I love my Wii, and I think everyone on the planet should have access to one... But it isn't just successful in the US, EU, or JPN for gameplay. The Graphics are good compared to what most casual gamers have seen at home before. The buzz is incredible Al Roker has been seen playing the Wii twice now, do you think they would have him playing Halo? People (read: Marketing Targets) buy what they are told to by sources they trust.While Sony and MS are trying to market complex machines with odd advertisements and sales pitches, Al Roker, USA Today, NY Times, Forbes, and many more trusted sources keep saying, "Buy this Wii." The people keep saying, "OK"
Moores Law is fun for engineers to talk about, maximum processing power will double every five(?) years. But Software and PC manufacturers realized a long time ago that when you double the processing power (and than half the price as some theorize, making it p^x^z and veering off of the original hypothesis) that people don't need or want all that power so you have to do one of two things. Either repackage an old product as a new one (lower processors in stylish iMacs, MacMinis) or you can drive demand for hardware with new software (PC games). Nintendo recognized that in the last 5 years "x" processing power multiplied (user end) but "z" the price of the next acceptable step to generate the type of demand was still too costly (proving the futurist are a little too enthusiastic).
Bringing this back to graphics or gameplay... look at the top 20 games. Mario has always been a graphics and gameplay leader, with lots of buzz, advertising, synergy, popularity... it feeds on it's self. Then Pokemon, when it came out the graphics gameplay (collecting and controling different monsters) were done better than any other attempt, but the new ones keep selling with slight visual improvements and no gameplay improvements. The graphics weren't great but look at all those different pokemon. The hype keeps perpetuating Pokemon. GTA hype, depth, large environments (which was a really big deal 6 years ago), but the game plays out like any other adventure game... except now you have the illusion of freedom instead of a mission select screen.
Get lower on the list though and can you really say that people are buying gameplay? NCAA, MADDEN, Spiderman Movie Game, Halo 3 Demo Crackdown... then into 50-200 for the year you see it dominated by so-so titles: Wrestling, Hannah Montana, Def Jam Icon, More sports, more GTA spin-offs, Paws and Claws Pet Vet beat out Puzzle Quest for gods sake...
Now don't get me wrong, I think consumers tastes in VG's is way better than in TV or movies, but gameplay is just one factor.
I would cite regulation, but I know you will simply ignore it.
