I-n-j-i-n

Sorry, but I disagree that the "forking timeline" theory makes the game any more or less enjoyable or more valuable. Similar things have been said about other timelines in other long standing series such as Phantasy Star, Final Fantasy and others and with vague connections and very small hints of the worlds and games being connected. You even see that constantly with Megaman and Megaman X with people speculating whether Zero is Protoman and whatnot. It's well implied, but it's never official. Why? I would think that's because the game developers don't really care for any sort of hard backstory aspect of their games. Games like Shadow of the Colossus have been intentionally made to be vague and even the director of the game said he doesn't have a solid backstory plan, but left the interpretations to the gamer. In the end, it's all about selling the game off as a spiritual sequel. It doesn't mean the storylines have to be connected nor is that ever important. Zelda is ultimately about exploring dungeons and beating bosses. Everything else, yes, even storyline is extraneous.

Hurr. Mac bias. I think it's the same kind of lukewarm excitement people had over Windows 95, Windows NT and Windows XP. It's a systematic change of OS and not some newfangled, great innovation like Apple keeps touting their OS's. Marketing tactic. lol

Wait a few years until you need a new computer when the Vista will have been updated a few dozen times and the thing is packaged with the essential hardware so you can be spared the headache. They're really aiming to make the Vista upgrade a hardware upgrade beyond just the software anyway.

I know this may not even make much sense, but I think it could be equatable to a movie showing a scene by camera direction and such. Games on television tends to be like that. You are always allowed to see what the game shows you in terms of the angles and the perspectives.

Constricted by 3D vision? There's plenty of games that get it totally right. You haven't been playing enough games if you actually say that. And over the shoulder mechanic is still improving. Try playing something like GRAW and see how well it works. Possibly even better than the usual FPS vision. Maybe it's because the 3D games have nigh infinite possibilities and there's just so much room to keep improving upon. With 2D games, the apex has been reached at least a decade ago. Maybe excepting the rare games like Geometry Wars or Cave Story. Oh, not this BS again. Graphics won't hit any type of "apex" until they can generate something like real world AI, all sorts of fancy graphical effects, zero lag graphical time, zero load times(which is seemingly impossible even with the cartridges), and all that kind of stuff. Games still have very wonky physics engines, horrible face-mapping overall for mimicking real life actors, camera systems that still need work (look at any great Zelda game or Shadow of the Colossus or FFXII or Ninja Gaiden... All excellent games except for the camera which can use more than a few tweaks) and etcetera. As for true next gen gaming, I can see Microsoft possibly going for the motion-sensor thing as well. But I think it'd be a better idea if they utilize some sort of a force-feedback motion controller like they have been experimenting with for the PC. Like instead of a controller being freely swingable without feedback, you can actually feel the resistance and the restraint the game's world imposes on you. So the motion sensing feels a lot more realistic. And also, I can expect the typical "online all the time" aspect with most if not all consoles. Microsoft is obviously going that path as well. As for Nintendo, I can expect them to improve upon the Wiimote a bit and up the graphical and multimedia aspects again. Sony maybe doing the same thing as Microsoft as MS seems to be the one leading the cutting edge in terms of casual gaming nowadays.

I think the official phrase is "Sailor Moon attack scenes". Which is hilariously appropriate.

I would not be surprised if that's not canon even if some Nintendo developers have said that. Just switch a few around and you could reach the same conclusion as that GTTV's analysis. I realized that most theories of the time line comes close to GTTV's one regardless.

Espers were obviously broken. They have NEVER been useful. Even against smaller mobs that I tried using against, they actually die from small, weak enemies before they reach limit break. Why bother wasting entire mana meters to beat up on weak enemies you may or may not see the limitbreak display by the Espers? And 60,000 damage? That is like... nothing. Never worth it since you always need the mana for higher calibur bosses. You'll understand once you get there.

For one, Quickenings are not really cheap. Because they are only useful for maybe three or four boss battles until you become so overtly powerful that you may as well keep using your mana instead of repleting them instantly. The battle system in FFXII pretty much is broke. After level 30 or level 40, it's all about exploiting the system. If you want true exploitation, Haste + Berserk on a single character is good enough.

I took that story as a "Diablo game, Starcraft game and a new MMORPG franchise". I won't be surprised if they do. I have a feeling that they might want to try making something totally new for once. "Bringing Warcraft to the movies is the next step for us, we want to let people bring World of Warcraft into other aspects of their lives. After all, we're competing for people's entertainment time, whether it's listening to music, watching TV, or going to the cinema" So maybe, finally, sorta, kinda, they are aiming to make a CG-cutscene style Warcraft movie they kept hinting at? I think that could actually be a pretty cool idea.

Sorry to play devil's advocate again, but Super Mario Bros and some other games were renowned for their graphics. Compared to the shit in Atari (even if they had some truly great games on it), everybody were impressed by the graphics in SMB in the day. Even with Tetris, yes, the gameplay was the focal point, but the whole Russian music and the colorful blocks just did it with gamers. Likewise with today, the relevance of realistic water effects, realistic lighting, realistic characters, realistic physics and etcetera play into the whole game play scheme pretty vaguely like that. But it doesn't mean they are irrelevant to it all.

Yeah, I was baiting a bit there. My personal posting style. Half trolling, half serious. But I don't know. I don't know what to think when I even do meet the rare graphics whore around. I simply assume that they're the garden variety newbie/casual gamer.

That is a stupid argument since you are not going to kill a human being, no less a fly by shooting a bazooka at it or ever fire a sniper rifle in your life. You are never going to be a singer, belong in a band, ever fly an airplane, ever drive a big boat with torpedo tubes on them, or ever prowl jungles being fearful of alien creatures, or fight ghosts, or go to the Super Bowl, or pitch in the World Series, or ever interact happily with a supermodel equivalent of the opposite sex, etc etc. It's really, really, really lacking intellectually if you are to associate "realistic graphics" with "real life" and how they are "trying to emulate real life". No they are not. Even Shenmue, with the rendition of everyday, boring life, is still ultimately about running around, being a detective and beating up punks and gangsters. Are you going to ever do that in your life? Most definitely not. Never in 99.999% of a general populace's lifetime. It's fulfillment fantasy. Even the most 'realistic' games that sell them as such. Again, this isn't some wholesale bashing of fantastic/abstract games or cartoony ones. Because I don't see a reason to separate the two or pick a side in the issue. Actually, similar arguments can be made for something like Wii Sports. Why, you could technically go to the bowling rink and have way more fun doing the real thing, right? You can always swing an actual baseball bat instead, surely? It's still a game and just an easy fulfillment entertainment. Of course, if you really want to make it big "for real" or risk your life by joining the military, you can do that too. But that's more like a LIFE CHOICE and not fleeting whims of entertainment. Graphic whores? Who even sees those types of people in real life? I mean, really? Aside from the lazy trolls who get easy reactions by either bashing a game for the fun of it? The vast majority of it being in the Internet? PS- Great article in your post AarowSwift. What I find funny with this argument is how people are inclined to go to the entire "only Japan makes great games, only Japanese style is the best, only the abstract Japanese style of art works in videogames" and yadda yadda. Also, that article brings to my point about even the most realistically looking games being escapist fantasy at its core. Just because Japanese games have a straight, set vision on games and put all sorts of purely fantastical elements doesn't make them necessarily more of a gaming experience than some American simulation game that goes for a different type of gameplay and reasons for enjoyment. It'd be pretty shallow for anyone to really assume that realism is the only thing gamers go for. Even when they say so that realism is a key point, the thing is the immersiveness of the gaming experience and the escapist fanatasy of doing what you'd normally never get the chance to. Again, you are never going to own a Ferrari and race against professionals or anything like that. Hence that's why realism is actually needed in that case for the sake of immersion. This is not equivalent to Super Mario needing to have realistic graphics when it's entirely fantastical and about jumping on Goombas. Those kinds of analogies don't work because they are not relevant.

I think that kind of wording makes things more vague. Not more specific. Because a lot of western style games tends to be more 'realistic' in terms of visuals. Like Oblivion, Bioware RPGs and a lot of American RPGs, the art style and the style of the graphics are more realistically inclined (but not necessarily realistic at all since fantasy != reality or even realistic). Same for shooters and action games and sports games where realistic graphics can get by just fine. You really don't see them make quirky game with realistic graphics or comedic games with the same. You see a lot of the Japanese games and just about everything is anime-centric or have 'realistic' characters who look more like anime figures than an actual human being. Like with the example of Dead or Alive games, like some people have mentioned before, it's really not a realistic presentation. Because the characters look in between anime characters and Barbie dolls. Then there's something like Prince of Persia which is in the same realm. The characters have pretty believably realistic look and physics, but the Prince himself looks like an anime character and the action is not even close to realistic. I also it's too subjective of a question. "How important are photo realistic Graphics really?" can turn into "How important are abstract Graphics really?" or "How important are celshaded Graphics really?" and etcetera. It depends on what the individual game's direction takes it. Considering the variety of games and their individual take and spin on realistic and unrealistic graphic presentations, I don't think it's some epidemic of one types of games getting more representation over the other.

Oh yeah, I agree that with HD televisions outputting high definition gaming, that is just about the apex of static visuals on a game. But the visuals still obviously can get better and better. One day, we may actually see those "Jurassic Park visuals" that PS2's marketing was dreaming about. Or maybe someday, they can stop lying to the gamers about what is essentially CG cutscene footage and passing it off as the actual game footage (too many launch titles in the PS2 era with just about all the consoles getting into it. I remember a few lawsuits that happened because of it. One even citing Call of Duty for the consoles for being advertised falsely with CG visuals and not actual in-game stuff. That is why recent Call of Duty 3 commercials have the "in game graphics" disclaimer). Besides the high definition output, which is actually better than my natural eyesight, there is the whole dimension with graphical power having to do with the ease of which developers can manipulate physics, the AI (heavily dependent on system power) and so forth. A lot of gameplay-centric things on top of the payoffs graphically that may not be too obvious. Such as possibly the Grand Theft Auto games looking better, having smoother frame rates (which totally kills the game sometimes when too many things happen in the screen), having better animations overall and the draw distance (another killer to GTA as a franchise. Buildings popping out of nowhere while driving/flying). Lots of vagaries with graphics and gameplay in games. I do not think one can necessarily separate one from the other. Though I personally am gameplay oriented and don't mind it as long as the gameplay is supplemented well by the graphics. If a game plays great but looks so bad that the design of the gameplay suffers, that can be an indication of laziness on part of the developers. Same for gorgeous games that may not have a great gameplay or with wild and insane cameras that doesn't capture the action well. Just so Kak can realize it without me making it any more obvious, gameplay is obviously a big factor. But I suppose we are talking about the visuals in this thread since that was the original point is all about. It doesn't mean I'm fucking obsessed with visuals.

Yiazmat is the biggest waste of time ever. "hay, let's slap 50 f'n health bars onto this boss!". At least it's good fodder for the ultimate weapons.

Thanks for ignoring all the points I've made. Just about everything I said basically is in line with what a lot of other people made. Why don't you pick on someone else? PS- Just because I say the graphics are "A" selling point (look, I wrote an "A". hur hur), it doesn't mean my entire argument hinges on it. It's called grammar.

Uh, yes you did. I said "utilize" the visual technology and whatever the game system can provide. I did not IMPLY that it was entirely about the visuals. I never said the game developers were obsessed about it. Or that we are supposed to even demand it. It's just that with newer games, we expect the newer stuff to look better than previously. This kind of a thought doesn't really apply to the older games since they have used their previous technology to their effect. I never did imply that older games are inferior due to the graphics alone. I never said the gameplay was not a part of it. You can't deny that the combination of the gameplay, the graphics and the overall style of the game makes a game. Different games are memorable for different things. That's it. It'd be nice if you stop implying and assuming after every post I make. Am I supposed to argue that? Since when did I ever say the PS3 was some savior of videogaming? I don't think I'll ever afford the PS3 too. I agree that they probably pushed the extraneous stuff too much. I'd imagine that they could've done better if they just stopped it with the hard drive, the wireless ethernet, wireless controller (not really essential for a Dual Shock..), the Bluray (probably added like $500 to the overall pricing) and etc. There's a lot that went wrong with the PS3. I think it'd be too overtly shallow to say that "visuals ruined PS3". No it didn't. The 360 is a great balance to it all and look how it's panning out. Incredibly well in just about everywhere but Japan for various reasons. Like I said before, it's more than likely that the successor to the Wii will also predictably increase its graphical capabalities too. I'm eager for that as well, as much as the developers taking advantage of the PS3, 360, the Wii and whatever the systems are capable of. Note how I say that they should take advantage of what they have. Not to put out some "realistic graphics" or that they should "only care about the graphics" or that "only graphics sell games" or that "only graphics matter" or etc etc. Do I need to be more sarcastic?

DKC2 is probably the best platformer I ever played, ever. Even more so than any Mario game ever. Challenging, with lots of things to collect, lot of fast paced techniques, ridiculously great music, visuals that doesn't age, etc etc. Not to mention some of the most memorable level design in any game. Just ingenious.

Care to stop with the assumptions, please? I merely said that graphics is one of the major selling points in any given day and age where a game comes out. By my definition of graphics, that typically means the visual flair of something. It doesn't have to be realistic, it can be purely cartoony (Wind Waker) or even purely abstract (Lumines) and be presentable along with the gameplay. There's the additional element of nostalgia with any great games that has been played before and the way the visuals and the presentation overall stands up with the technology that were available at hand. I don't just point fingers at "GRAPHICS" or "GAMEPLAY" and do it that way. It has to be a combination of both as I see it. And people playing older videogames, I would assume, would have the brain to know that older games had more restrictions whether it's the visual aspect or in terms of gameplay simply because gaming was lower in the evolutionary ladder compared to the games of today. Legend of Zelda not having the battery save was bad by any standards and it effected the gameplay a lot. But is it understandable? Of course. Oh, and just because I'm opting to stand up for the visual aspects of games, does it make me some anti-Nintendo gamer? No. I would daresay that I'm a Nintendo fan at the foremost. I'm simply against being so divisive about it all when it's just a matter of different companies taking different approaches to gaming. All with potentially great effect.

They do not seem to drive sales over one other directly, but it's still a selling point. Do not take what I say out of context. Really. As for PC gaming, I think it mostly has to do with the stagnation of the entire industry being run by the same genres and types of games again and again, and being run entirely by the success of a few venerable franchises and not having much room for innovative games to make it big like it can for console gaming. Graphics aren't a measure of downfall by itself as I see it. It depends on the factors surrounding it and what the developers do with it. PC gamers had to contend with rising costs of computer upgrades all the time. This is not something new. That, and of course, the prevalent stereotype (which is true) in which PC gamers are all some sorts of geeks or hardcore types of gamers. And with internet flash games and other simplistic games being distributed for free and with the general expectation that PC games should have online play and are generally more complicated to play than console games, that just further put it in a niche.

What are you talking about? Ports needs to be made specifically for the Wii for the controls. Look at Madden for the Wii for example. Besides the learning curve and the general complexities of the control, it worked pretty well. Analog + buttons have always been efficient and fun. I'm simply guessing that you are being incredibly biased about all this. I played Wii Sports and I played sports games since the 80's. PONG was a sports game of sorts and it was done with an unwieldy joystick and it still ended up being fun for its time. As for something like Fight Night, it had a very intuitive two analog stick setup. Not all Dual Shock style controllers even USE all the buttons and analog sticks and etcetera. Much like how the Wii games tend to leave most of the functions to the motion sensors and a few crucial buttons and nunchuck aspects. I honestly don't see much of a difference in terms of such efficiency with FPS games. Especially not after they got the hang of the aiming sensitivity and the better analog inputs since the PS2 and Xbox. It's simply a different control scheme. I do not see a huge disparity between them. Depends on how the game makes itself immersive in their respective ways. Games that just use keyboard and mouse, which is possibly one of the strangest ergonomic control method in gaming history, can be quite good at controlling complex strategy games, shooters and etcetera. But those types of games including the games that use traditional controllers focus entirely on the context of the game itself and the mechanics that happen within the game. Not from the controls itself. I didn't expect much other than gaming partisanship from you really. No offense meant, but that's the vibe I keep getting. Will not happen since the subtleties of the battle systems, the characters and the art style for them are all quite different. Of course, to the casual, dumb observer, they may as well be the same. Mario? Crash Bandicoot? Sly? ALL THE SAME. Same logic. Okami already looks much crisper and great using upconversion. I'm doing that right now. Also, with HD gaming, it's more the progression of technology to the modern times. Let's face it: Games always has been about the top notch in visual technology. Nintendo tried something new with the Wiimote, but visual technology still sells. And specs-wise at least, the Wii is more powerful than the Gamecube as well. To great effect compared to the last generation hopefully in the coming years. I'm sorry, but that is a very silly thing to say. Super Mario Bros games, SMW games, PSOne and N64 games in their days were GORGEOUS, MODERN graphical masterpieces back then. Taking a look back on it with emulation is not a really valid point to make. Likewise, something that we might consider great with the Wii and the 360 and PC gaming today might seem primitive if we saw it from the future. There has to be that context of the age we're in. Hell, did you think Commodore games used to look awesome? Or Turbografix games? They were in my day. Don't tell me they look like pixelated shit /sarcasm.

Ho, I disagree. Warcraft was like Dune 1. Great novelty, and amazing for its time. Play it now, and it's so pixelated, it's actually hard to see anything. Then came Dune 2 and Warcraft 2 which improved upon everything. People bash Warcraft 3, but the whole four-side dynamic worked really well. And the hero aspect was interesting since you can do all sorts of crazy ambushes with a single unit. I mean, that hero unit thing was what made Total Annihilation so great with the commanders. Then it gets bashed by people. Maybe it was too complex a game for its own good. It's definitely not as easy to get into compared to the other Warcraft and Starcraft games. More nuances with the resource and hero leveling.

I really disagree with this. Why? Because Madden for the Wii, Red Steel and just about every Wii game I rented and heard stories about people learning the control scheme (as in getting used to it, getting the hang of its unique complexities, etc) isn't really different from using the dual shock and learning the button schematic. If you are even mildly receptive of games, then you WILL learn the controls. This goes both for the Wii and Dual Shock styles. I mean, one of the prevailing discussions with the Wii is how difficult some games are to learn the controls compared to the traditional style. I own the Dragonball Wii game and I can definitely attest that it definitely would be easier on the PS2 like it has been reported. There's a learning curve with both consoles. This is pretty much factual as I see it. Don't tell me you can "jump in" and play the games. A lot of Wii games don't allow for that. Even with simplistic games like Warioware, you need to get some hang of the control handling compared to the extremely easy setup of the original Warioware titles. I don't really think novelty even matters at this point though. It's just there and it's the games that matter entirely with the traditional game controllers. Then put in some oddballs like Karaoke Revolution or Guitar Heroes or Taiko Drum games. Typically musical type of games where the controls can actually make the game. I wonder. The game developers aren't stupid and they are obviously very, very competent with the visual aspect for the most part. In the few games after launch, it was the case that they were more concerned about the visual upgrade. A lot of the new versions of the older franchises will go through that same transition. But eventually, the gameplay is what sells games and they are picking up on it now. I really feel that is the case now. I would agree that the lower development costs could mean a lot, but technically, the 360 and PS3 still has a ton of unique projects coming up. I think the difference in the visual power of the systems is the cause. I think it all could change if all the systems eventually have similar features, but they aren't. Not this generation. I think the whole thing with animation is getting a lot better though. It's not like the realistic representation is used to be realistic. There's always the aliens, the crazy over the top action and such. Even with the realistic style shooters, just look at the new Splinter Cell and Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six Vegas and the animation is quite up to par. As for the graphics being put on a pedestal, I don't know about that. You NEVER hear PC gamers complain about some "fall of gaming" or that games are losing their soul over the latest PC game having jaw dropping graphics. I don't want to sound divisive here, but I think the whole Nintendo marketing scheme with their "graphics don't matter" thing is getting into the heads of some people. People predictably said the same thing when the PS2 and Xbox came out and most people still thought the PSX-style graphics were "good enough". Then of course, when the killer aps start coming out, people predictably shush about the issue. Seriously. Can anyone really blame Gears of War for looking jaw droppingly beautiful AND having a unique art style all its own? Or maybe Spores taking advantage of next generation graphics and processing capability? Well, I don't think something like the Wii Sports boxing is much different something like the recent Fight Night games where you simply use the two analog sticks as avatars for arm movement. As for Warioware, yeah, the motion sensitive stuffs adds a lot. But I don't think it's something that hasn't been explored to varying degrees by all the internet games that hinge of mouse-sensitivity or twitch gameplay. I do actually agree that the Wiimote can add a lot to the experience, but I don't think it's a make it or break it deal. Similar story with graphics. It can either totally make the experience and sell the game by the millions, or it can go the pedestrian route and simply have good looking visuals for the sake of having it. I mean, Perfect Dark Zero and Kameo was the perfect example of it. Then later on, they release Viva Pinata which has the same gorgeous visuals, but with much more of a focus on the gameplay. I really think graphics matter a lot, but it depends on how developers use it. On this one issue, I agree with DJP's assessment. Graphics, controls, the hardware quirks and etc are all components of the whole. I don't believe they can ever be separate from eachother, though game developers can sell them individually. But ultimately, they all come together in a singular gaming experience.

But user interface != gameplay. User interface and the Wiimote and all that is simply a changing the way the game is played. It doesn't magically change the game itself as a genre. If you play a sports game or a fighting game or whatever type of game on the Wii with a new control scheme, that's fine and dandy, but that doesn't typically change the core gameplay. I don't think game developers magically lost the ability to make original games using traditional dual-shock style controllers. I doubt they ever will. And there is a reason why developers still look to 360 and PS3 development even if they may be more expensive. For one, the 3rd party gets much more exposure than they do for a Nintendo home console. Secondly, the more they spend, the more profit is at stake as well. The BURGERKING games for the 360 was one of the most profitable games of 2006. Gears of War sold more than 2 million. There's a lot of money to be had for the more effort it may take. And graphical capabilities having less restrictions leads to new ideas since game developers don't have to worry about it as much. Though they typically run the systems to their limits two or three years in. But by then, they tend to focus a lot more on original gaming content. Look at Katamari Damacy, Shadow of the Colossus, Ico and a whole slew of original games PS2 got near the end of its lifetime. Same will happen with the 360 and PS3. Wii will predictably get great games mostly from Nintendo itself but with some great ones by the 3rd party too. Again, I don't think you can say that things will go one way or the other with graphics. Just because Nintendo is doing other things doesn't make it necessarily inferior or superior in its philosophy. And mark my words, Nintendo WILL eventually have to go high definition eventually. But of course, that could take another gaming generation. And by then, we don't know if PS4 or Xbox720 or whatever could have the same Wiimote style innovations or something totally new on their own. Even having a much more powerful system compared to PS3/360 could be good enough. It always has. The gaming market can hold three competitors and the recently exploding sales proves it. As for the interface features and HD, I was more talking about the in-game texts and the like. In most action games, you typically can only see clear text only when the text is pretty clearly put out on a billboard or in some static, on-screen display. I'm not sure what clear in-game text would do for gaming, but I'm sure they can do certain gameplay related features for it. Like let's say, driving a car and being able to clearly read worded signs that are far away and not necessarily have it on a big board like they typically are. Also, the less space the text occupies the screen, the more room for the actual game displays and etcetera. Wide screen can give you a wider vision compared to the typical standard definition. Some obvious stuff as well.