177 replies to this topic

[DarkJuno]

Besides that, if you're going to get an HD TV, 19" seems to be kind of a waste. You're better off saving up and getting one that's at least 25" or so.

Which I, as a college student, can obviously not afford - hell, even my full time job can barely afford all those silly little things like food and gas after tuition and books, even with the maximum Financial Aid that I can get. Besides that, the money that I currently have holed up in my bank account from being crazily frugal I dare not touch just in case something crazy happens.

Summer is pretty much going to be my "save up money for whatever console I'll eventually get" time. Primus knows that it'll be the only time I can.

...as an aside, I refuse to believe that no one's been corny enough to say that the new console better be Revolutiona-Wii.

[thabto81]

I'm reading an article over at IGN right now talking about next-gen graphics. Here's the link in case anyone is interested and a quote:

Some developers are pleased with the gains that next gen technology has brought. During the mid-90s', PC games were considered the pinnacle of graphical achievement for many gamers in the U.S. But now, console power has caught up with PC strength. For middleware developers like Chattering Pixels, this is what they were hoped to gain with next-gen technology.

"We were expecting high definition rendering, a stronger focus on online play and much dicussion around getting the best out of multiple CPUs / CELL," says Martin Fuller, Technical Director at Chattering Pixels. "So far we've seen all of this with very few surprises - except possibly from Nintendo and their new controller. That's not to dumb down the generational leap, it's a huge step forward but there really do seem to be very few surprises. One thing is for certain: the new generation is here and there is going to be a huge learning curve for everyone..."

Some developers do think that gamers are expecting to see visuals that not even next-gen technology can pull off. The developers at Chattering Pixels observed that when gaming moved from Playstation / Saturn / Nintendo 64 to Playstation 2, GameCube and Xbox, the hardware gave developers a huge leap in quality. But the current leap we're looking at now isn't so grand.

"You could render the same polygon on the XBox and on X360 with the same shaders running and it would look exactly the same," says Fuller. "The same could not be said when we transitioned from the Playstation to the Playstation 2."

...as an aside, I refuse to believe that no one's been corny enough to say that the new console better be Revolutiona-Wii.

That's because we were all trying to hold our tongue... and you just ruined it. Good Job man!

Edited by thabto81, 03 May 2006 - 10:40 PM.

[ESK]

Revolutiona-wii? As in revolutionary?

Even I can come up with something better than that!

[Hero of Legend]

Not so. The next-generation only began six months ago, so there's no way to know what this new gen is capable of in order to say the gap between it and the last generation isn't as significant as previous gaps.

No matter what happens, we will not see a N64-PS2 difference this time - That's a fact. There will be other things, such as physics, that will improve immensely between current and next generation games, but physics are not graphics.

Just for reference, here is pic of the Wii version of Rayman 4. Since Red Steel's only exists as a bunch of GI scans, this is the most reliable (thus far) showcase of the Wii's power.

And it doesn't look too good. Nintendo better hope that controller is as innovative as the hype suggests.

Of course, it is of no significance that this new Rayman is the same kind of multiplatform game you said was not reflective of the 360's power.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 May 2006 - 06:01 AM.

[dcLx]

The Rayman graphics are bad, I mean the fur seems very detailed but everything else is just rough edged

[Veteran]

I dislike the console because of it's controller and it's name. But even I wouldn't criticise it because of it's power.

[Hero of Winds]

No matter what happens, we will not see a N64-PS2 difference this time - That's a fact. There will be other things, such as physics, that will improve immensely between current and next generation games, but physics are not graphics.

How can you say it's a fact when this generation has barely begun? Devs have barely scratched the surface when it comes to what's under the hood (for 360 and PS3 at least).

Of course, it is of no significance that this new Rayman is the same kind of multiplatform game you said was not reflective of the 360's power.

Of course it's of no significance. The title 'Rayman 4' may be a multiplatform game, but the Wii version is being developed separately (hence the controller functionality that, obviously, other versions will not feature). Comparing that screenshot to the 360/PS3 version is like comparing GRAW on the PS2/Xbox to GRAW on the 360.

[Hero of Legend]

How can you say it's a fact when this generation has barely begun? Devs have barely scratched the surface when it comes to what's under the hood (for 360 and PS3 at least).

You might want to read this.

Besides, I only need to compare N64 games to PS2 games, and then compare Xbox games to 360 games in order to know which difference is most noticeable. The end of characters with heads in the shape of boxes is a bigger improvement than realistic skin textures.

Of course it's of no significance. The title 'Rayman 4' may be a multiplatform game, but the Wii version is being developed separately (hence the controller functionality that, obviously, other versions will not feature). Comparing that screenshot to the 360/PS3 version is like comparing GRAW on the PS2/Xbox to GRAW on the 360.

And you actually expect them to build up a new graphics engine just for a Wii game? Give me a break. It would be much easier to simply change the controls of the GC version, which no doubt is exactly what they have done.

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 May 2006 - 03:03 PM.

[SteveT]

Devs have barely scratched the surface when it comes to what's under the hood (for 360 and PS3 at least).

Yeah, but that seems like all they're interested in doing.

[Hero of Winds]

Besides, I only need to compare N64 games to PS2 games, and then compare Xbox games to 360 games in order to know which difference is most noticeable. The end of characters with heads in the shape of boxes is a bigger improvement than realistic skin textures.

Splinter Cell for the Xbox

Splinter Cell Double Agent for the Xbox 360

And you actually expect them to build up a new graphics engine just for a Wii game? Give me a break. It would be much easier to simply change the controls of the GC version, which no doubt is exactly what they have done.

Simply change the controls? They'd have to change the entirety of the game's mechanics in order for it to make use of the remote.

Regardless, the Rayman 4 shot is the first, and only, screenshot of a game made for the Wii. It's the best benchmark, thus far, for determining what the Wii is capable of.

Yeah, but that seems like all they're interested in doing.

Whether people like to admit it or not, better graphics do lead to better gameplay (again, I cite Super Mario 64). By improving upon technology, you improve upon what can be done in a game (gameplay, online functions, etc).

And to tell you the truth, I'd much rather take games like Halo 3 and MGS4 over the likes of Super Mario 128 (Nintendo has been proven that Mario can't function as a 3D platformer; using a radically new control scheme could only make things worse). I don't want gimmicks, and I don't want features that are touted as being revolutionary when all they really do is make me look like an idiot (see: the last few DK titles on the Cube). I want next-generation games that provide next-gen experiences, which both the 360 and PS3 have been proving. As of now, to me, the Wii is merely a glorified EyeToy.

[Hero of Legend]

Splinter Cell for the Xbox

Splinter Cell Double Agent for the Xbox 360

It's kinda unfair to compare a gritty, black-and-white screenshot to one that is showing of lightning effects...

Anyway:

Nintendo 64

Game Cube

Not a big difference, huh?

Simply change the controls? They'd have to change the entirety of the game's mechanics in order for it to make use of the remote.

Yes, but the control mechanics and game engine have no direct connection to each other, or the graphics. The Wii game could turn out quite different from its brethren and still look about the same.

Regardless, the Rayman 4 shot is the first, and only, screenshot of a game made for the Wii. It's the best benchmark, thus far, for determining what the Wii is capable of.

True, but don't expect it to be an accurate representation of true Wii games. Personally I'll wait for MP3 footage before I make up my mind.

Whether people like to admit it or not, better graphics do lead to better gameplay (again, I cite Super Mario 64).

(Nintendo has been proven that Mario can't function as a 3D platformer

Huh? You say improved graphics make a game better, then you say 3D Mario sucks (Which is an opinion, BTW)? How does that work? I mean 3D > 2D as far as graphics goes...

Edited by Hero of Legend, 04 May 2006 - 04:23 PM.

[Stew]

Who really cares about graphics? Current gen (GCN, PS2, and Xbox) graphics are fine as it is. I don't really think that things need to look better than they do in RE:4, or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, or MGS:3.
Besides, a game could look as real as anything, but could still suck. Would you rather play a game, with crappy graphics, but awesome game play, or just look at a complicated, realistic, painting dry?


Besides, has anyone here has actually played the Revolution? (I'm calling it that to repel "Wii" jokes) Judging something without actually trying it for yourself is childish, and stupid. Sure, if you can go and play it's games, and spend some time on it, and come back and say "I don't like it because of this and this, I think it could have been a lot better" well, fine. But the system isn't out yet, for crying out loud! All that your arguments sum up to is basically " I think this sucks!"

Nobody in the history of forever is going to be persuaded, or convinced by "I think"s and "In my opinion"s

[dcLx]

I don't really think that things need to look better than they do in RE:4, or Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory, or MGS:3.
Besides, a game could look as real as anything, but could still suck. Would you rather play a game, with crappy graphics, but awesome game play, or just look at a complicated, realistic, painting dry?

Word, they just totally showed off the Gamecube's true power right there, but you still need some graphics for the good gameplay...

[thabto81]

Whether people like to admit it or not, better graphics do lead to better gameplay (again, I cite Super Mario 64). By improving upon technology, you improve upon what can be done in a game (gameplay, online functions, etc).

Bwah? I think you should state this as your opinion and not as a statistical proven fact. Also, if by the above comment what you actually mean is that proper graphics lead to better gameplay then I'll agree with you. But if you seriously mean that better graphics = better gameplay then that's just a load of hooey. That's like saying good lyrics make a good song and ignoring that the medium revolves around music, not poetry.

I don't want gimmicks, and I don't want features that are touted as being revolutionary when all they really do is make me look like an idiot (see: the last few DK titles on the Cube).

Does anyone?

And what's your beef with Donkey Konga? I thought those games were fun. Not to mention they do a really good job of getting people together to have fun. Sure, one may look a bit foolish pounding on some bongos (just like all them crazy kids back in the 80s playing with their new NES controllers) but at least we're all having fun doing the same thing.

I want next-generation games that provide next-gen experiences, which both the 360 and PS3 have been proving. As of now, to me, the Wii is merely a glorified EyeToy.

So are you saying that better graphics is all it takes to make a next-gen console? How does that work? I mean this is an interactive medium we're talking about here in which graphics only play a part. Shouldn't the term "next-gen" refer to the entirety of interactive media and not just the graphics?

[D~N]

I don't want gimmicks, and I don't want features that are touted as being revolutionary when all they really do is make me look like an idiot (see: the last few DK titles on the Cube).

I will quote fyxe in this reply in saying that you NEVER looks cool when you play a video game. WE ALL PLAY THEM, WE ARE ALL NERDS. There is no cool way to play videogames.

[Hana-Nezumi]

I can look cool doing anything. 8D


Actually I really can picture myself posing holding the controller... I just tend to do that sometimes, even in my sleep: :P

[Stew]

I will quote fyxe in this reply in saying that you NEVER looks cool when you play a video game. WE ALL PLAY THEM, WE ARE ALL NERDS. There is no cool way to play videogames.

I like to refer to this comic when arguing that point.

It's referring to kids/adult games, but it does deliver the same message. "How cool do you look when playing video games? Ask your fucking girlfriend how cool"

[Overconfidence]

Graphics vs. Gameplay are the same sort of thing as the neverending "LOOKS VS. PERSONALITY" gig.

Which brings me to my conclusion:

A good game needs good gameplay, that's for sure. However, if two games are equally as fun, I'd much rather go for the one with better graphics.

Edited by Overconfidence, 05 May 2006 - 08:31 PM.

[Hero of Winds]

Hero of Legend:

It's kinda unfair to compare a gritty, black-and-white screenshot to one that is showing of lightning effects...

But that's the point! Those lighting effects contribute heavily to the look of next-gen games.

Anyway:

Nintendo 64

Game Cube

Your first link doesn't work. =P

If you're not happy with my Splinter Cell comparison, try this one:

Prince of Persia (PS2/Xbox/GCN)

Assassin's Creed (PS3/360)

Yes, but the control mechanics and game engine have no direct connection to each other, or the graphics.

Unless I'm horribly mistaken, a game's engine has everything to do with the way a game looks and plays.

Huh? You say improved graphics make a game better, then you say 3D Mario sucks (Which is an opinion, BTW)? How does that work? I mean 3D > 2D as far as graphics goes...

Yeah, sorry about that. It is kind of a contradiction. Basically, here are my thoughts on SM64: I don't particularly like the way the game plays or controls, but I can respect what it did for the genre (and without SM64, games like Ratchet & Clank or Psychonauts wouldn't exist). But if SM64 were to be released in 2006 with the same gameplay it had in 1996, I wouldn't buy it.

For me, it's the same with Metroid Prime: I can appreciate it for what it is, but I can't stand the actual gameplay.

thabto:

Bwah? I think you should state this as your opinion and not as a statistical proven fact. Also, if by the above comment what you actually mean is that proper graphics lead to better gameplay then I'll agree with you. But if you seriously mean that better graphics = better gameplay then that's just a load of hooey. That's like saying good lyrics make a good song and ignoring that the medium revolves around music, not poetry.

Yes, I agree with you. It was a bad choice of words on my part. Using your Black reference from before, good graphics do not automatically equate to good gameplay.

And what's your beef with Donkey Konga?

Like I said before, "I don't want features that are touted as being revolutionary when all they really do is make me look like an idiot." Donkey Konga does that in spades.

So are you saying that better graphics is all it takes to make a next-gen console? How does that work? I mean this is an interactive medium we're talking about here in which graphics only play a part. Shouldn't the term "next-gen" refer to the entirety of interactive media and not just the graphics?

It doesn't take graphics alone for a next-gen game, but it would be foolish to downplay their role. Next-gen visuals provide for a greater sense of immersion, which allows for next-gen experiences. Again, I'll cite Call of Duty 2.

[Selena]

But that's the point! Those lighting effects contribute heavily to the look of next-gen games.

I'm pretty sure he means that the shot of the older game was a black and white, security camera looking pic, whereas with the other, you actually have color and can thus determine the quality of lighting and graphics. The two shots weren't really good to compare to one another.

But yes. The next-gens have better graphics. This is a given. Although it's interesting to note that graphics can only go so far before they reach the 'eery' state. I forget what the term is. Chik pointed it out to me on Wiki not long ago. Where the looks are almost human, but not quite, which results in people thinking they're just downright strange and unnerving. It'd be interesting to see how people would react to that level of realism. Which obviously means that graphics can only go so far.

Personally, the next big jump in gaming will be from 3D to VR, which the... Wii.. is starting to touch on. But I'd say this generation was more of a transitional period before we see jaw dropping stuff, honestly. PS3, 360... sure, they're probably fun. But not really worth my money, in my opinion, since I'm still satisfied with PS2 era graphics. Hell, I haven't even got myself a decent game library for that system yet. I'd honestly probably go for the Wii, despite how freaky it is.

If I actually knew more about it, Nintendo. (you are a source of CONSTANT frustration)

I'd probably go with PS3, otherwise, since my favorite games on it, but I'd like to afford food too, so that's out. But then again, I probably won't get any of them. At least not until they're all old, have a lot of games out, and are cheaper.



In conclusion:

- 360: "Look. I have awesome specs. Love me for the numbers. And the fact that I act just like a computer without MS Office."

- PS3: "Ooh! Ooh! Me too! But with different technology!"

- Wii: "I was interesting until my parents gave me a name that will get me shoved around on the playground."

Edited by Selena, 05 May 2006 - 09:15 PM.

[FireHexer2]

In conclusion:

- 360: "Look. I have awesome specs. Love me for the numbers. And the fact that I act just like a computer without MS Office."

- PS3: "Ooh! Ooh! Me too! But with different technology!"

- Wii: "I was interesting until my parents gave me a name that will get me shoved around on the playground."

For concluding: Wii is NOT a popular name. I think everybody agree.

[thabto81]

It doesn't take graphics alone for a next-gen game, but it would be foolish to downplay their role. Next-gen visuals provide for a greater sense of immersion, which allows for next-gen experiences. Again, I'll cite Call of Duty 2.

No one's downplaying their importance. It just seems to me that graphics are more prevailant in your argument than gameplay when comparing the 360 and PS3 to the Wii. After all, what better gameplay do the 360 and PS3 offer that their predecessors don't already offer? And I'm not talking in terms of graphics. We already know that the Wii can't hold a candle to it's competitors. My question is what exactly does all that horse power the 360 and PS3 have go towards besides graphics? Something tells me not much. And what about the controllers themselves? The 360 has more or less the same design controller as the original Xbox with only slight modifications and Sony didn't even bother to change their controller.

Now the argument can be made that it's not what you have to work with, but how you work it. And this is true to a point. However, we've had these controllers for quite some time now and their usefulness of pulling us into the gaming world has grown thin. There is only so much game developers and console designers can do to spice up an old relic. I believe the Wii controller will offer a breath of fresh air to interactive media. I could be wrong of course but I doubt it. If I manage to get into E3 next week then hopefully I'll be able to check out the new controller and provide more than just a gut instinct that it's going to do exactly what it says it will do.

[Chukchi Husky]

But yes. The next-gens have better graphics. This is a given. Although it's interesting to note that graphics can only go so far before they reach the 'eery' state. I forget what the term is. Chik pointed it out to me on Wiki not long ago. Where the looks are almost human, but not quite, which results in people thinking they're just downright strange and unnerving.

Uncanny Valley?

[Hero of Winds]

No one's downplaying their importance. It just seems to me that graphics are more prevailant in your argument than gameplay when comparing the 360 and PS3 to the Wii.

That's only because I keep running into this argument about 'Who cares about graphics? Gameplay is the most important thing, and since Nintendo's the only one doing something different, they're the only ones who're satisfying that area.' I'm not trying to say graphics are first and foremost in the next generation, but they are integral, which is what (from my point of view) a lot of people seem to be forgetting.

After all, what better gameplay do the 360 and PS3 offer that their predecessors don't already offer? And I'm not talking in terms of graphics. We already know that the Wii can't hold a candle to it's competitors. My question is what exactly does all that horse power the 360 and PS3 have go towards besides graphics? Something tells me not much.

What really annoys me is when people forget that a console's power isn't there just to make the game look pretty, but also improve the gameplay substantially as well. Stronger hardware equates to bettter physics, better AI, tighter controls, more intuitive controls, more gameplay options (single player, multiplayer, and online), greater space for a dev to work with (in other words, more game to make and play), stronger net code, etc. Not to mention smoother animations, better looking character models, more stable (and higher) framerates, and higher resolutions - while that last sentence relates to graphics, they're also integral to the whole immersion factor of the game, which is something Nintendo aims to accomplish with their new controller, no?

And what about the controllers themselves? The 360 has more or less the same design controller as the original Xbox with only slight modifications and Sony didn't even bother to change their controller.

The 360 controller is the definition of comfortable, so there's no reason to change that around significantly. As for Sony... well, their 'boomerang' controller looks different from the other Dual Shocks, but apparently it was just a model (my guess is that Sony will unveil the final look of the Dual Shock 3 at E3).

Something that's also bugging me... why now? Why is it this generation that critics are saying it's time for a revolution? That they've had enough of the same controllers, enough of better graphics, enough of sequel after sequel? Why not last generation? Why wasn't the PS2/Xbox/GCN era in desperate need of this kind of revolution? Why do people think this next generation is si stale?

However, we've had these controllers for quite some time now and their usefulness of pulling us into the gaming world has grown thin.

But like I said before, why now? Why is it now they've grown thin?

There is only so much game developers and console designers can do to spice up an old relic.

Which is what a lot of people said until games like Katamari Damacy and LocoRoco came out.

I believe the Wii controller will offer a breath of fresh air to interactive media. I could be wrong of course but I doubt it. If I manage to get into E3 next week then hopefully I'll be able to check out the new controller and provide more than just a gut instinct that it's going to do exactly what it says it will do.

While I know this isn't what you said, I hope you (and everyone else) realize that just making a game for the Wii doesn't automatically mean innovative games. I'd imagine developing for the Wii isn't as simple as people think, since the controller can't be slow in responding to both the player's and the game's movements. Not to mention devs need to prepare for any and all possible actions that can be done with a controller (in essence, a variable for every pixel on your TV screen).

[thabto81]

That's only because I keep running into this argument about 'Who cares about graphics? Gameplay is the most important thing, and since Nintendo's the only one doing something different, they're the only ones who're satisfying that area.' I'm not trying to say graphics are first and foremost in the next generation, but they are integral, which is what (from my point of view) a lot of people seem to be forgetting.

Well, this is where we disagree. I don't believe graphics are integral to bringing a player into a game.

What really annoys me is when people forget that a console's power isn't there just to make the game look pretty, but also improve the gameplay substantially as well. Stronger hardware equates to bettter physics, better AI, tighter controls, more intuitive controls, more gameplay options (single player, multiplayer, and online), greater space for a dev to work with (in other words, more game to make and play), stronger net code, etc. Not to mention smoother animations, better looking character models, more stable (and higher) framerates, and higher resolutions - while that last sentence relates to graphics, they're also integral to the whole immersion factor of the game, which is something Nintendo aims to accomplish with their new controller, no?

But if you refer to the article from IGN that I quoted on the previous page you'd take note that a lot of the developers for the 360 and PS3 seem to be developing primarily for looks and not gameplay. The Wii's controller as well as it's subdued graphics does not give developers the chance to take the easy way out and just make a prettier game.

Something that's also bugging me... why now? Why is it this generation that critics are saying it's time for a revolution? That they've had enough of the same controllers, enough of better graphics, enough of sequel after sequel? Why not last generation? Why wasn't the PS2/Xbox/GCN era in desperate need of this kind of revolution? Why do people think this next generation is si stale?

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and and place my bets on the Wii's controller. In my opinion, when people have had the same thing delivered to them for so long and then have the promise of something new they'll jump on it. It's an impulse thing (much like this how this thread started heh) and it's not always the best thing to do but it does lead to change. And change is good.

Which is what a lot of people said until games like Katamari Damacy and LocoRoco came out.

I'm not saying no more innovative games will come out of the old school controllers. All I'm saying is that the possibilities for them have grown thin and the gap between games like Katamari and LocoRoco and previous innovative games is growing wider.

While I know this isn't what you said, I hope you (and everyone else) realize that just making a game for the Wii doesn't automatically mean innovative games. I'd imagine developing for the Wii isn't as simple as people think, since the controller can't be slow in responding to both the player's and the game's movements. Not to mention devs need to prepare for any and all possible actions that can be done with a controller (in essence, a variable for every pixel on your TV screen).

Again, this goes back to what I said about how you use something. The Wii controller has the potential to open up a lot of opportunities much like the 360 and PS3. It's up to Developers though to truly make use of them.

[Selena]

Why not last generation? Why wasn't the PS2/Xbox/GCN era in desperate need of this kind of revolution?

As has been stated before, the jump from the N64/PSX era to the GCN/PS2/etc. era was a bigger leap. Grainy PSX graphics became smooth, realistic graphics. Clunky N64 models became something far more proper. Online gameplay was incorporated into consoles (with the exception of the GCN). The ability to actually talk to those people over the 'net as well. You could play DVDs using your console, even.

With this? Eh. All the same tools are there. Just with flashier graphics. You can only pull the same tricks so many times before they get old.

[Pacman]

Who cares what name it is? Its still, the same system...right?

[Nevermind]

Yeah, maybe take into account that Nintendo themselves admitted that they don't care about graphics and power as much as they do gameplay. People say they don't want to play on a controller like that because they just want to stick to the same old same old.

And yeah the name change is totally gonna change how the entire console works. Like, totally, like omg.

Although I look at the name and pronounce it "why", which leads me to think of it as a very multi-layered concept of a name.

"Why?"