"Saturation point"? Innovation>Graphics? Read!

Flames removed, be nice & civil people, or the thread may end up being locked.

 

You removed some of my posts that weren't even flames at all.Especially in the other thread.

 

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.

 

Actually one of the all time immersive game is Shenmue and the graphics pale in comparison to games on current consoles.

 

well that game keeps you focused on things not that far away and it loads from one area to the next all the time. the immersion is in the dialog more than anything. it beats newer games on that front.

 

Really it isnt any different from Hollywood saying, over reliance on special effects will cause the movie biz to die. Storylines and Characters are what make great movies, Gameplay is what makes great video games.

 

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.

 

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?

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.

 

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!"

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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.

 

Personally that already is a too big sacrifice.

 

I don't think Nintendo ever said that graphics aren't important, but that an over reliance or an unbalanced emphasis on them without advancement in other areas could casue stagnation.

 

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.

 

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?

 

That's a good example of a simple game on a "complex" controller. It doesn't work the other way though.

 

Pictures ... Movies?!

Until we see PlayStation 3 dole out this sort of interactive entertainment, chalk it up to marketing mantra.

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.