(I already said this in "Zero Punctuation: Portal 2" But since my quotes mostly comes from this page, I'm C&P it here too)
To Ben Croshaw:
You don't care what I have to say about graphics, but, damn it, I'm going to try.
There is so many problems with you, Mr. Croshaw, but I'm just going to start with this one:
"Visual effects technology in both videogames and films have advanced to the point that what is put on screen is limited only by the director's imagination"
"Oh, for the days of the last console generation, when technology sat on the very agreeable fence between high-techitude and accessibility, when developers weren't so slow to ask themselves questions like "Strictly speaking do we really need a physics engine in a Championship Manager game? Is it so important that the league tables slide realistically down the screen?""
"Now, Last Crusade achieved this effect because it was a real stunt occurring in reality between real, physical objects, which is virtually impossible to fully simulate in pixel space because of the millions of factors you can't possibly predict, like the movements of the thousands of dust and grit particles that cloud up and get in Harrison Ford's face."
It seems you are trying to tell everyone that graphics in games will never get any better, and movie CGI can almost never be as good as the real thing, so it's pointless to even try. What an awful thing to tell people! We didn't get here by throwing up our hands and saying "too hard! we give up!" Technology *NEVER* works like that! You just want to go back to the "good OLD days".
And what the Hell is it with you calling it "pixels"? You sound like an old man who reviews movies then a gamer. Why didn't you call it CGI, or graphics, or polygons , like most of us do?
Let me get to the point: You say games are now "limited only by the director's imagination". That is complete nonsense! If that was true in anyway, then please show me this game, with no canned-animation or scripted sequence:
--In this photorealistic game, the Player is on top of a mountain looking down on a huge city. In the city, the Player sees 100,000 Cyborg Demon Ninjas, rampaging through the city, killing everyone in sight. On top of that, there is Giant Robots and motherships destroying all the buildings. The city itself can be dynamically destroyed; better then anything seen in both Red Faction or Minecraft (See the movie 2012). This photorealistic game is also a Open World game with real rooms in all the buildings, meaning, if I wanted to, I can hide in a fridge from all those CDNs in a apartment....--
Do you know any 360 or PS3 games like that? No, you don't. The only thing near to that, is Red Faction: Guerrilla, and even then, you can only destroy something that has 2 floors and 5 rooms. It's not like you can destroy something the size of Black Mesa or anything. In fact, some games can't even have more then 5 bad guys on the ground, because of bad programming, and or the way the game engine works. They get around it by using tricks, but I can always tell when they are using those tricks. And here's a big secret: programing gets much easier when computers are a lot more powerful. I'm a programmer, so I know what I'm talking about.
So please stop talking as if we hit the holy motherland, because we can barely have a photorealistic human in a room, much less an army of photorealistic humans destroying a city in a non scripted way.
For anyone thinks this can't happen in the next 5 to 10 years, think again:
Physic tech demo:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MuWuTc5agVA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKphYfUk-M
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nlcc9wJAzFQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grIVUDH4FIM:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87qdmuOesRs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZsMjRmaJOqo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xrb8PSpkhkQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwoJ-upjeKo
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1JrM4ujLY_A
real-time ray tracing and path tracing:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbokPe4_-mY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyoHvNpuaK4
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnXW0CitlIA
real-time in-game graphics:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_YNR38H-kM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0YjXCae4Gu0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GckOkpeJ3BY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvI1l0nAd1c
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6GmrdHxpYxk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBJIpQsecB0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=THaam5mwIR8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g5i_mgF7Vas
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWZjzSQgBrg
I'll end this by saying, I know my words will fall on deaf ears, and if Mr. Croshaw ever sees this, he is just going to make fun of my bad grammer, and all my stupid links. Well, sorry for wanting to go to the future, but I can't live forever, and I can think of a million fun things in games, that you just can't do in this seventh generation of consoles. Sure, we have Portal and Mindcraft, but do you really want to wait 20 years on the seventh generation, hoping someone is going to make a super game to come-out, while playing Gears Of War 12, or Modern Warfare 7? Because even Ubisoft said they don't want to make anything new until the next-gen comes a calling:
http://scrawlfx.com/2011/04/ubisoft-ceo-industry-needs-new-consoles
And Mr. Croshaw? If you really want to try new and weird games, why don't you try all the Wii games you never played? Or all the games that came out in the 90s? Or all the indie games? Or the great iphone games? Or all the mods? Why do you *always* have to talk about the most popular games? Why not review Star Control 2? Why not? It's sad you openly lie to try to move the gaming industry your way. You say you want weirder games, but you only seem to enjoy shooters, and sometimes RPGs.
( P.S. You, Mr. Croshaw, give gamers everywhere a bad name.)