Benjamin Briggs Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 nintendo doesn't give a fuck Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thalzon Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 Sony: We're going to release a fuck-as-all-hell powerful system that will last at least ten years! Microsoft: Well, we released a system just four years after our first one because GRAPHICS ARE GETTING SO AWESOME. Nintendo: We're gonna hold off on this hi-def thing until it becomes financially viable. Instead, we're doing waggle. Sony and Microsoft: LOL NINTENDO U SO KIDDY UR GRAPHICS SUCK WHAT IS THAT WIIMOTE A DILDO OR LOLLIPOP LOL. Nintendo: *makes cash* Sony: Fuck, Nintendo's gotten rich off their dildo. I guess we should do the logical thing and release one of our own. Microsoft: Fuck that, I'm gonna release a thing where you don't need controllers! Sony: And our things will be in glorious hi-def! Which we still haven't learned that everyone who bought the Wii doesn't care about! Nintendo: Don't forget your gaming division operates exclusively in the red, guys. Microsoft: Dude shut uuuuuuup. Nintendo: Well, now that we've made our millions and it's been six years, we're releasing a hi-def system. With a huge controller that also has a screen. Sony: A-HA! So you admit we were right all along! Microsoft: Silly Nintendo, you can't do any of this big gaming business stuff right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 nintendo doesn't give a fuck Well, to an extent, they do. So long as what they do happens to be a maintainable revenue generator as well. Sometimes, it does line up to be favorable for both the company and their customers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted June 25, 2012 Share Posted June 25, 2012 I never said that improving graphics was the most important, I merely said they have a long way to go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anorax Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Sony: We're going to release a fuck-as-all-hell powerful system that will last at least ten years!Microsoft: Well, we released a system just four years after our first one because GRAPHICS ARE GETTING SO AWESOME. Nintendo: We're gonna hold off on this hi-def thing until it becomes financially viable. Instead, we're doing waggle. Sony and Microsoft: LOL NINTENDO U SO KIDDY UR GRAPHICS SUCK WHAT IS THAT WIIMOTE A DILDO OR LOLLIPOP LOL. Nintendo: *makes cash* Sony: Fuck, Nintendo's gotten rich off their dildo. I guess we should do the logical thing and release one of our own. Microsoft: Fuck that, I'm gonna release a thing where you don't need controllers! Sony: And our things will be in glorious hi-def! Which we still haven't learned that everyone who bought the Wii doesn't care about! Nintendo: Don't forget your gaming division operates exclusively in the red, guys. Microsoft: Dude shut uuuuuuup. Nintendo: Well, now that we've made our millions and it's been six years, we're releasing a hi-def system. With a huge controller that also has a screen. Sony: A-HA! So you admit we were right all along! Microsoft: Silly Nintendo, you can't do any of this big gaming business stuff right! this is the best thing I've read today. And it seems just about 100% accurate. . . . I think what it is, is that people want something new that works. Obviously, the Wii remote was new, but it worked. Then, Sony and Microsoft finally realized that there's a different way to game, and they do some stuff. Meanwhile, graphics is whined about against the Wii, but hey, you have a product that doesn't look like a underdog rip-off, and sells well to boot. Graphics aren't the best, but they pioneered a certain technology with gaming and are running with it. . . . Then, Nintendo tries something new, while stepping up to the graphics plate, per se. So we'll see, in a year or two, Sony and Microsoft will try to one-up Nintendo and the WiiU, probably with Sony trying to do a handheld controller w/screen, or hell, maybe a double screen, with one of them being a touch screen! Meanwhile, Microsoft will resort to a handheld controller that responds to hand gestures. . . . Hell, I don't know. It seems that Nintendo has the right idea and Sony and Microsoft don't quite realize it, but they'll still try to do a one-up on graphics, and claim they're better because of it. tl;dr Nintendo has the right idea, and Sony and Microsoft try to cover their asses when they realize their disadvantage. Edited June 26, 2012 by Anorax editing stuff because you can't do indents with spaces. gotta add periods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PROTO·DOME Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Games have a long way to go in terms of graphics.Yes I'm being pretty particular about the use of the word 'graphic' but let's just clear this up: GRAPHICS ≠ REALISTIC AESTHETIC Furthermore, GOOD GRAPHICS are not necessarily equal to REALISTIC !EXAMPLE! Let us turn our attention to VVVVVV. Does that "far to go" graphically? No. In fact, it has achieved graphical perfection- it fits its intended style perfectly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Ok, my bad. I'm talking about in terms of toward photo realism, which is what I think the person I was initially replying to was talking about (in terms of we're almost at a point where we can't improve anymore, which I disagree with). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I think we're approaching the point where no one will really notice or even care anymore. Photo-realism will be something that we get to, and it will plateau at that point. It may take ten years or more, but we will almost certainly reach the point where real-time interactive photo-realism can be done cheap enough to make it a commercial product. But the thing is, even the most realistic-looking game we have now aren't trying for photo-realism. They're trying for passable-realism with very carefully chosen visual effects, colors and other artistic aesthetics. Even the most recent Call of Duty games have gone for the (admittedly, over-used) bloom with lots of earth tones to convey the setting. They could remove a lot of those lighting, tint, color and shading effects for better overall performance and realism, but that's not the point. Adding all that stuff makes it look and feel the way they think it should. So photo-realism isn't really the goal, when you think about it. It's about near-photo-realism with lots of artistic flare to make it look a certain way. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ocre Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Absolutely. I laugh at the people who see something like Pikmin 3 and expect everything to look like an actual photo(because that's what they think Nintendo is going for) when they're clearly going for a stylized realism. And then you have a game like Rhythm Heaven Fever getting points docked in a review because the visual style doesn't bend toward realism at all. Why should a game be penalized for looking unique and not conforming to some 'expected' realism? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 (edited) Are you seriously using Call of Duty as an example to talk about modern-day game graphics? Those graphics are years ancient. Look at Battlefield 3, dude. It's magnitudes more beautiful than Call of Duty, and to suggest that "no one notices" is ridiculous. I notice. Maybe I'm that guy who takes games too seriously, but if we can appreciate small detail in visual 2D art, why not in video games? But again, my point is not that we SHOULD move towards photo-realism. All I am really saying is that we have a long way to go to reach that point, and to say "no one notices" is dumb (unless you're calling me no one). Edited June 26, 2012 by Neblix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Are you seriously using Call of Duty as an example to talk about modern-day game graphics? Those graphics are years ancient.Look at Battlefield 3, dude. It's magnitudes more beautiful than Call of Duty, and to suggest that "no one notices" is ridiculous. I notice. Maybe I'm that guy who takes games too seriously, but if we can appreciate small detail in visual 2D art, why not in video games? Sorry, Call of Duty and Battlefield all look the same to me. Brown, some bloom, occasionally there's some tired exposition about the horrors of war while gunning down soldier after soldier... you can't blame me for getting them mixed up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Sorry, Call of Duty and Battlefield all look the same to me. Brown, some bloom, occasionally there's some tired exposition about the horrors of war while gunning down soldier after soldier... you can't blame me for getting them mixed up. I suppose if that's how you look at your games, I can't really argue. You win this one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cerrax Posted June 27, 2012 Share Posted June 27, 2012 Graphics are always important, but we've reached a critical mass where development costs concerning graphics are the driving force behind rising game prices. If game companies didn't need five artists to make the rust spots on a corrugated tin roof, games wouldn't be pushing the $70 mark. It only takes a handful of people to program a game. It takes a few dozen to make it look good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Briggs Posted July 2, 2012 Share Posted July 2, 2012 unless they fix flickering pixelated shadows and shit like Batman's cape going through his fucking body I refuse to consider any game "photo-realistic" Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC2151 Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I think you're going to have to wait another two generations before we get to that stage of development, chthonic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Someone posted a link on the irc channel, I wish I could remember where it was so I could post it here. Basically, it stated that the drive towards higher and higher budget games (budgets swollen by the industry-perceived need for better and more graphic detail/realism/whatever, as well as other issues, but more money and resources being devoted to graphics was often stated by both developers and publishers) was steadily killing larger studios and making it harder for smaller ones to even survive, let alone compete. It looked at the need for a game to recoup its development cost by selling 3 or more million copies to just break even. To just break even. Not turn a profit, but to make back what they spent on it. A part of the article was quotes from people about the rising cost and how it would be cheaper to make games on something like the Wii U or Android/iOS devices. I figured such an article would fit in well, both in regards to the topic in general and the current graphics stuff. If anyone has the link to the article, please post it. I think most people here would find it an interesting read. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overflow Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I've heard the same things, and possibly read the same article but I have no idea where it is. It really does make a lot of sense: if game companies are spending billions to make their games due to the higher cost of better graphics, chances are they'll never make that money back. I really think games need to move more towards stylistic than photorealistic, similar to how Nintendo's been doing it. Besides, amazing games don't need the greatest graphics. They sure don't hurt, but really, Ocarina of Time on N64 is still a classic that looks great even today, and Wind Waker will always look amazing. And lest we forget the NES and SNES classics that are still fun and regarded by many to be the best games of all time. Besides, like someone else said, in a FPS you probably aren't going to admire the scenery much. Graphics need to be suited to the game. Metroid Prime, for instance, is a series that almost demands high-end visuals, since you move slowly, interact with the environment and explore the same areas over and over. In fact, I STILL discover new things on Tallon IV every time I play. A game like CoD however has you running through the levels, likely never to see them again, and like someone said, most gamers probably turn off all the fancy graphical features to improve framerates for online gaming. Point is, graphics don't really need to get all that much better anyways and need to be used as the gameplay dictates, rather than the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Besides, like someone else said, in a FPS you probably aren't going to admire the scenery much. Graphics need to be suited to the game. Metroid Prime, for instance, is a series that almost demands high-end visuals, since you move slowly, interact with the environment and explore the same areas over and over. In fact, I STILL discover new things on Tallon IV every time I play. A game like CoD however has you running through the levels, likely never to see them again, and like someone said, most gamers probably turn off all the fancy graphical features to improve framerates for online gaming. That someone else is also the guy who thought Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 looked the same. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Overflow Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 That someone else is also the guy who thought Call of Duty and Battlefield 3 looked the same. Haha well then I don't play online anyway. I just don't think every game needs photorealistic graphics, and in fact, they can sometimes even be a detriment to the gameplay: if your realistic looking character can't manage to walk around a simple ledge or obstacle it can break the immersion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 Haha well thenI don't play online anyway. I just don't think every game needs photorealistic graphics, and in fact, they can sometimes even be a detriment to the gameplay: if your realistic looking character can't manage to walk around a simple ledge or obstacle it can break the immersion. I only merely think they have a long way to go towards photo-realism. I don't have an opinion on whether they should try to go there or not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 and versus and Yeah, real different. Some series are stuck on graphics so badly that it's becoming a financial sinkhole. EA is offering all kinds of "premium" packages that give you slightly more content for significantly more money. You're already paying $60 or more for just the game, and then they ask you to pay $10 or more for slightly better server access. Why are they offering this? Because they can't afford not to. Here's a crazy idea: why not offer better server access to everyone by putting some more money towards servers? Instead of, you know, spending five years and $50 million making a barely better-looking game engine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 http://www.fronttowardsgamer.com/wp-content/uploads/Battlefield-3-Graphics.jpg http://gamelearners.files.wordpress.com/2009/04/call-of-duty-4-modern-warfare.jpg Don't push your lack of appreciation for detail onto other people. Just because you choose to ignore the difference doesn't mean other people do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 One is slightly browner. Good point. Never mind the fact they both have the same settings, the same guns, they same uniforms, the same basic characters models, the same vehicles, the same physics, the same plots, the same events. But yeah, one is slightly browner. Excellent counterpoint. Don't push your lack of appreciation for detail onto other people. Just because you choose to ignore the difference doesn't mean other people do. I don't ignore it. I don't see it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nabeel Ansari Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 I don't understand how you cannot see the difference. That's ridiculous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Damned Posted July 3, 2012 Share Posted July 3, 2012 ocre was kind enough to provide the link to the article in question. http://www.notenoughshaders.com/2012/07/02/the-rise-of-costs-the-fall-of-gaming/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.