"Saturation point"? Innovation>Graphics? Read!
- Thread starter pixelbox
- Start date
People keep saying that the Revolution's innovation will wear off.
Yes, of course it will wear off. All innovations inevitably become taken for granted.
The DS' "gimmicks" certainly haven't worn off yet. Given the flexibility of the Revmote, I don't see why we should worry about it. The only thing you should worry about (and this is what developers have said) is crappy software that doesn't take advantage of it. That's a concern with every platform, though.
Yes, of course it will wear off. All innovations inevitably become taken for granted.
The DS' "gimmicks" certainly haven't worn off yet. Given the flexibility of the Revmote, I don't see why we should worry about it. The only thing you should worry about (and this is what developers have said) is crappy software that doesn't take advantage of it. That's a concern with every platform, though.
As someone said earlier, i don't think we really need innovation. We still didn't conquer 3D gameplay yet. Someone also brought up Mario64 and Sunshine saying Sunshine didn't have the same amount of immersion. It didn't and the reason was because of it's gameplay was different compared to Mario 64. Another reason current gen games didn't have it was because levels were too small. There were sacrfices to be made with great looking games. Then poor L.O.D. didn't make things better as far as immersion. All and all i think in this gen's refined graphics will make all the different in immersion.
JarrodKing
Newcomer
Nightz said:
Yet you don't see people clamoring to make feature films with old Super 8 cameras. Humans are a visual organism. We get more involved in things we can see more clearly. That's why any film student will give his eye teeth to have access to a 35mm camera rather than one that uses 8 or 16mm film. The resolution goes up and our immersion in the movie goes up as well. While we watch it, our brain says, "Hey, this is real!". Can you make a good movie with Super 8 or a good game for the Gamecube? Yes. But you can make a more exciting or involving one when what you are seeing on the screen looks better. Undoubtedly.
Why be stuck with worse visuals? It annoys me to no end when people look at gameplay vs. graphics like it is some sort of idiotic see-saw. You can have both. You don't add more graphics quality and, oops, there goes the gameplay and innovation or vice-versa.
Company Boss
"Well Bob, I hate to say it, but we've decided at the last minute to go with some better graphics in Flaming Toilet 2."
Programmer Bob
(sighs)
"Well, I better get in there and take some of that gameplay and innovation out of there. Better take the fun down while I'm in there, too."
There is absolutely nothing preventing MS or Sony from having innovative and fun games. But there IS something preventing Nintendo from having HD output and cutting-edge graphics- the design of their system.
Last edited by a moderator:
I disagree with that. What gets you 'immersed' in the movie is the content, the characters, the plot, which draws you in on an emotional or intellectual level, not on a sensory level which is all film resolution can affect. We'll of course clamour for more quality whenever available, but quality of the images doesn't affect accessiblity on an emotional or experiential level unless quality is that bad it ruins the experience. Star Wars episode 2 was produced in much better quality than Episode 5, but I know which I rate the better movie and can actually stomach watching! Would you rather watch a bad film on a first-rate home-cinema in HD 5.1 yadayada, or watch a great movie on an SD stereo CRT?JarrodKing said:
Releasing a console with ZX81 level graphics will kill the experience. Trying to portray everything in collections of black, square blocks isn't going to world. A console with greater than XB graphics is going to be able to render scenes, characters and objects with enough accuracy to be able to tell the story. A lower graphics level on Revolution won't stop it being able to appeal on the same emotional and experiential ways as XB360 or PS3. There's plenty of people who have had strong emotional experiences with current-gen graphics and Rev has better than that.
JarrodKing
Newcomer
Shifty Geezer said:
Even though they were filmed years apart, they were both shot on a very high resolution format, 35mm film. Games aren't even close to that level of detail. I think we'd all agree that If George shot Star Wars on an old-school VHS camcorder it wouldn't have been the hit that it was.
I see what you are saying Shifty and agree; I'd be the first in line to ask Hollywood as well as game developers for better, deeper character creation, innovation, etc. What I'm saying is, all those things being equal in a game (gameplay, fun, etc.), there can be no advantage to having worse graphics. In my opinion, there are definite improvements in immersion that come with improved graphics capabilities.
"My guy on the screen is getting chased by aliens."
changes to
"I'm being chased by aliens!"
JarrodKing said:
People have finite amounts of money to spend on entertainment. Nintendo wants to appeal to people who currently aren't in the console gaming scene. A $400 console goes a long way toward not accomplishing that. Further, DS proved that gamers will buy stuff that has less than cutting-edge graphics as long as the promise of an otherwise totally sweet gaming experience.
standing ovation
Regular
IGN said:
Innovation has an umbilical cord: the bottom line.
When everybody is profiting, everyone can afford to gamble -- err, 'dabble' -- in new things. But when no one is profiting, nobody can afford to be inventive.
The prime objective is to get your goods and services past the checkout counter.
IGN said:
Nintendo (and Apple for that matter) knows that consumers have a soft-spot for cute underdogs. So if Revolution is feebler than its competitors, well, there you go. :smile:
As far as graphics are concerned, I think Mr. Iwata is talking about a point of diminished returns. The visceral difference between current and next generation consoles is becoming less and less obvious.
The world is full of little niches. And in those niches people pay for what they like as long as it's reasonable for what they want. What i'm trying to say is a niche is a niche, if people like games they will buy it. Nintendo isn't reaching for something new with that wand. It's still gonna be a game no matter how you slice it. Sony's plan to make videogames mainstream will help it to grow instead of making it more bizarre to the consumers. Now a days more people are accustomed to how videogames look and plays. Getting more use to it's presence as entertainment than a fad or childish, (The same thing happened to the movie industry btw). Older people(40 up) are amazed at what they see and are genuinely entertained. All i see Nintendo doing is estranging what the industry has been growing to. The industry needs to become bigger than what it is and the direction Nintendo wants to go will only place it in a more simplistic, child-like novelty as before, granted if they suceed.fearsomepirate said:
mckmas8808
Legend
pipo said:
I know! I was trying to give XLA some credit there. My point was if simple games are so so great then those same people can also like Xbox arcade.
mckmas8808
Legend
standing ovation said:
I think people will be laughing their asses off at the super stupid "diminishing returns" comment. One look at MGS4 video, GRAW, or the BIA:3 screenshot and any normal person will realize that what they see is not diminishing at all.
And on a personal level are you suggesting that comparing what a system (Xbox 360) can and will do 'graphically' should be based on launch games in which some were just port'em ups from current gen software?
standing ovation
Regular
mckmas8808 said:
Pictures ... Movies?!
Until we see PlayStation 3 dole out this sort of interactive entertainment, chalk it up to marketing mantra. :neutral:
mckmas8808 said:
The visceral difference between current and next generation consoles is becoming less and less obvious.
This is because the cost of progress is becoming more and more expensive.
As a consequence, it is easier to differentiate games on earlier systems than later ones. PlayStation 3, for instance, should leapfrog over PS2 -- but its jump will not be as dramatic as the one PS2 made over the original PlayStation.
