http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc2hhef-NzoCorpse XxX said:
I'd like to see a PS2 game that looks like that...
Industry Needs Better Stories, Not Better Hardware, Says THQ Boss
- Thread starter Logan Westbrook
- Start date
I'd like to see a PS2 game that looks like that...
Yet another statement that required a professional so it gets some attention. How come these been popping up a lot lately?
But honestly, why ramp up more colors and graphics if we are on the tipping edge of human visual understanding already, my monitor can produce more colors than I can see, and I got almost perfect color eye (officially tested, My results were 198/200) Why would I need more colors on my screen? Why would I need more FPS than my eyes can keep up with?.
Why would I need better music quality than 256b on 88kh? My ears can't register more, I am not a bat.
Why would I need better stories? Because I am sick of paying 70euros for a game that doesn't stimulate me anyhow intelectly and makes me bored a shit... Thats why!
Personal rant over... Sorry.
But honestly, why ramp up more colors and graphics if we are on the tipping edge of human visual understanding already, my monitor can produce more colors than I can see, and I got almost perfect color eye (officially tested, My results were 198/200) Why would I need more colors on my screen? Why would I need more FPS than my eyes can keep up with?.
Why would I need better music quality than 256b on 88kh? My ears can't register more, I am not a bat.
Why would I need better stories? Because I am sick of paying 70euros for a game that doesn't stimulate me anyhow intelectly and makes me bored a shit... Thats why!
Personal rant over... Sorry.
The only thing a new console generation could bring now is more bling, so I'll pass.
Thinking gaming moves forward because of graphics and the like is the reason the industry has such a hard time making a profit with big titles these days, they just get too expensive to make.
Thinking gaming moves forward because of graphics and the like is the reason the industry has such a hard time making a profit with big titles these days, they just get too expensive to make.
No rule without exception.. and i did not say i had seen all THQ games, but all i've seen have had pretty much shitty graphics when compared to what console they put it out for..WrongSprite said:
Probably 'cause when I think THQ...I think PC. Company of Heroes, Dawn of War, Stalker, Metro, all PC games.Corpse XxX said:
So I can see what you mean
While I agree on the sentimate, I think at least 1 more round on consoles will be needed first. This is because a lot of peoples opinions on a game is dependant on how shiny it looks and because of this, companies go for graphics first leaving less space on the disk/hardware run time for gameplay and story. The next round of consoles will hopefully allow for both. Imagine Fallout: New Vegas (picked as better story then 3) but with Crysis level graphics?
I took that as meaning that there will be no major gameplay changes or additions (although there's always a chance someone will come along with something completely new and original that creates a new trend). Vast majority of games come out that you can describe as "Like God Of War, but...", "Like GTA IV, but...", "Like Call Of Duty, but...", etc.Xzi said:
There's a lot of basic gameplay types, but you really can't count on someone coming along and creating a new one (and if they do, it'll only be an excuse for everyone to jump on that particular band wagon). What more can the venerable action game add beyond the wide assortment of weapons, melee combat, parkour movement, vehicles, upgradable abilities, social interaction, and all the other stuff that they currently have? We'll very likely see better ways of doing a lot of these things, but brand new gameplay ideas... I ain't going to rule it out, but unlikely seems to cover the odds of this happening pretty well.
But I think he's essentially right. While both the 360 and PS3 could both use a hardware update, it's mostly for letting them do *more* of what they're doing now, not to do it a whole lot better (graphically speaking). The ability to get more action on the screen, have fewer pop-ins, and a healthier framerate is the bulk of what they need to do. Other than that, it's usually about a good mix of action, a solid gameplay mechanic, and an interesting story... and it's the story area where games could use the most work.
I get what he's saying, but I think he's saying it poorly. It could be very easy to take what he's saying to be an endorsement of the "So-Many-Cutscenes-Its-Really-Just-A-Movie-Where-You-Have-To-Hit-PLAY-Every-Ten-Seconds" style of game design. Some (though not all) of those games have good stories, but they are fleshed out at the expense of gameplay.Logan Westbrook said:
(We have a tendency to blast cutscenes mostly because they tend to misrepresent the graphical elements of a game, particularly in advertising. Somehow, we tend to minimize the impact they have on removing control from the player.)
I think what he needs to say, to express things more accurately, is that we need a greater synergy between story and gameplay. Old school games were all about the gameplay, while the story was an afterthought loosely draped over the mechanics (or, like Pac-Man, with no story whatsoever). We've improved the games by increasing the amount of story in the mixture, but that doesn't mean the "correct direction" is away from gameplay.
We need both legs of this metaphorical biped to be equally strong, and we need them to connect to the same body. The gameplay should pull the player into the story, and the story should inform the gameplay. There is a glut of games that emphasize one at the expense of the other (on either side), and that's what we need to address.
Gameplay is not so much a demand of technology as a developer being able to suss it out. Even before motion was put into play, how many games can you say really did the job tremendously well? It's funny, but sometimes I think the developers just don't care about how it plays.
I really agree with the guy on most fronts. PS3 and 360 are far enough that digging for more tech to push the things that used to drive the industry would start to border on a waste of time. Especially since we're at a point your entire gaming set up has to be changed out to get the MOST out of what consoles offer now.
That said the Wii held back this generation and can't perform like they're rivals. Masters that they are at not needing awesome hardware, they'll probably need a real iteration sooner than the others.
That said the Wii held back this generation and can't perform like they're rivals. Masters that they are at not needing awesome hardware, they'll probably need a real iteration sooner than the others.
[HEADING=1]OBJECTION![/HEADING]
Stop forgetting it exists, people. Nintendo is going to have to release a more powerful console soon if they want to stay relevant in that market considering the Wii has been showing its age for years now. And when they do, they could easily make the new device much more powerful than both the 360 and PS3 if they wanted. Then pretty soon, the new Nintendo console starts getting all the best games because the 360 and PS3 wouldn't be able to handle them, and guess what? New consoles from Microsoft and Sony.
Or Nintendo just puts out something on part with the 360 and PS3, and Microsoft and Sony won't care that much. But either way, THQ guy is wrong; Nintendo needs to step up their console game with some new hardware.
Or Nintendo just puts out something on part with the 360 and PS3, and Microsoft and Sony won't care that much. But either way, THQ guy is wrong; Nintendo needs to step up their console game with some new hardware.
I think we need better stories as a priority over better hardware, but the idea that vying for technical supremacy has ended is just ignorant and stupid, I'm sure people thought around the time the steam train came out "Wow, transportation innovation is officially over"
When has Nintendo EVER put out a device that is more powerful than it's competitors?mjc0961 said:[HEADING=1]OBJECTION![/HEADING]
Stop forgetting it exists, people. Nintendo is going to have to release a more powerful console soon if they want to stay relevant in that market considering the Wii has been showing its age for years now. And when they do, they could easily make the new device much more powerful than both the 360 and PS3 if they wanted. Then pretty soon, the new Nintendo console starts getting all the best games because the 360 and PS3 wouldn't be able to handle them, and guess what? New consoles from Microsoft and Sony.
Or Nintendo just puts out something on part with the 360 and PS3, and Microsoft and Sony won't care that much. But either way, THQ guy is wrong; Nintendo needs to step up their console game with some new hardware.
Yes, I was planning on reading it. Sadly, the list of books I still need to read is a big one. I'll be sure to read it... Sometime.GamesB2 said:
Super Nintendo (better than Sega Genesis graphic wise), N64 (the 3d graphics were way better on it than the PSX) and maybe the regular Nintendo (over Sega Master System). The gamecube's graphics were probably better than PS2 but not as good as the XBOX but I'm not sure. It is only been with the Wii really that Nintendo has had the worst graphics out of the major consoles...danpascooch said:When has Nintendo EVER put out a device that is more powerful than it's competitors?mjc0961 said:[HEADING=1]OBJECTION![/HEADING]
Stop forgetting it exists, people. Nintendo is going to have to release a more powerful console soon if they want to stay relevant in that market considering the Wii has been showing its age for years now. And when they do, they could easily make the new device much more powerful than both the 360 and PS3 if they wanted. Then pretty soon, the new Nintendo console starts getting all the best games because the 360 and PS3 wouldn't be able to handle them, and guess what? New consoles from Microsoft and Sony.
Or Nintendo just puts out something on part with the 360 and PS3, and Microsoft and Sony won't care that much. But either way, THQ guy is wrong; Nintendo needs to step up their console game with some new hardware.
EDIT: Come to think of it maybe you were being sarcastic. Hard to tell online.
I have to disagree with.....well, pretty much all of that. There is no way the gamecube was more powerful than the PS2thenamelessloser said:Super Nintendo (better than Sega Genesis graphic wise), N64 (the 3d graphics were way better on it than the PSX) and maybe the regular Nintendo (over Sega Master System). The gamecube's graphics were probably better than PS2 but not as good as the XBOX but I'm not sure. It is only been with the Wii really that Nintendo has had the worst graphics out of the major consoles...danpascooch said:When has Nintendo EVER put out a device that is more powerful than it's competitors?mjc0961 said:[HEADING=1]OBJECTION![/HEADING]
Stop forgetting it exists, people. Nintendo is going to have to release a more powerful console soon if they want to stay relevant in that market considering the Wii has been showing its age for years now. And when they do, they could easily make the new device much more powerful than both the 360 and PS3 if they wanted. Then pretty soon, the new Nintendo console starts getting all the best games because the 360 and PS3 wouldn't be able to handle them, and guess what? New consoles from Microsoft and Sony.
Or Nintendo just puts out something on part with the 360 and PS3, and Microsoft and Sony won't care that much. But either way, THQ guy is wrong; Nintendo needs to step up their console game with some new hardware.
EDIT: Come to think of it maybe you were being sarcastic. Hard to tell online.