I'd love to see your math on that, because I see nothing of the sort. It'd be really hard for the 'average' to also be the maximum considering we know that they offer significant discounts and promotions.
*spin-off* Importance of graphics in the purchase decision process
- Thread starter almighty
- Start date
I'd love to see your math on that, because I see nothing of the sort. It'd be really hard for the 'average' to also be the maximum considering we know that they offer significant discounts and promotions.
But $60 a year is NOT the maximum. People paying month to month pay TWICE that. Lots of the promotions, coincidentally, renew at $9.99 a month.
Do you have a link to the discussion?
Anyway, it has been tested that higher frame rates (up to 72 fps) give a higher emotional response. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Showscan)
This is largely ignored because 60 fps games are more difficult to make. However, Activision/IW figured it out and they are reaping the rewards.
People paying less now, but more over the long run is a pretty common feature of commerce. Let's not pretend it doesn't happen (a lot).
I don't have a link to the discussion itself or even the full article (I'm not registered with gi.biz). I was basing my outrage on what I remembered of a NeoGaf thread containing quotes and so may be putting the wrong slant on things and doing an injustice to the people involved. Here's the thread:
http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showthread.php?t=458542
I don't want games to try and mimic the current (or future) limitations of film, I want them to look more like the reality the game is trying to present.
Thanks for that.
It doesn't surprise me that the emotional response is heightened, nor would it surprise me if a game maker didn't care about that. For al the talk about "games as art" (whatever that means), the way games tend focus on the quality of the image on screen frame by frame to the detriment of their ability to support the process of building a game-world in the mind of a player reminds me of the way action movies are mostly just empty spectacles. But that's probably because the market as it currently is doesn't care.
I don't think that's entirely fair. Kingdoms of Amalur is hitting 60 fps much of the time, but the rather flat look of the game doesn't help create a realistic game world. If they aimed for 30 fps, they could get more into each frame to give a more realistic appearance that doesn't look quite so...lacking. I love the 60 fps thing and the smoothness of motion information, but I wouldn't say it helps build a game world. Skyrim's art produces a more acceptible, believable world. I can't begrudge developers going for more art and less framerate at times. It workd well for Uncharted (although I will say I'd happily take any game at 60 fps if we didn't have to worry about compromises!).
I do accept that games can be better overall when aiming for 30 fps, but with that comment I was really expanding beyond the frame rate issue. Games typically undervalue, IMO, aspects that aren't related to graphics on screen and/or pure gameplay mechanics (if you're lucky).
Take, for example, memory reserved to store the location of bullet holes, or corpses. Show the scale of destruction and the human waste of war? No thanks, how about an even distribution of corpses throughout the level due to the polygon concnetrations and the memory allocated to object positions - and make sure everything is swept under the carpet if you backtrack.
And that AI character that you fought with and protected throughout the level? Not only do they not make it to the next level, they don't even make it to the start of the oh-wow cutscene. But hey, nice normal maps.
Video games are great, but they suck.
But on the flip side, how great would a truly realistic, perpetual, interactive workd with fabulous AI be if it was populated by stickmen and square trees because all the system resources were consumed in underlying game mechanics? Do you feel this gen, PS3 and 360 put too much emphasis on graphics, and should have halved their GPU resources and invested more heavily in RAM and CPU to enable fabulous new worlds even if they didn't look too hot? in a way PS3 had more CPU grunt to support that (although not sure about RAM, but with standard HDD persistance can be maintained) but it's been turned to doing graphics work.
L. Scofield
Veteran
I remember that at the start of this gen, CELL was believed to be used for physics, lots of complex simulations. Instead it ended up as a GPU add-on -_-'
That's a bit unfair. It was still also used for all sorts of physics stuff. It's by no means the only one, but Super Stardust's Endless mode is a good show-off.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxofSINwM4s&feature=player_detailpage#t=436s
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Well.. screenshots + videos sell a lot more than gameplay.
Besides, a game that extensively used Cell at its best for anything other than graphics probably couldn't be ported to the X360, making it quite a bit riskier to develop.
How is it a bit unfair? It's been documented and discussed countless times that Cell has been used heavily to support RSX. The challenge with the PS3 itself was using the Cell to offload graphics to the Cell and maximize the architecture. That's been the main usage of Cell in what's considered the best PS3 titles.
Do you have any evidence to back up you statement?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
Chill.. it's just common logic, since it's a lot harder to show gameplay experience and controller interaction than the game's looks.
Videos and screenshots can only get you as far as "that". They cant always guarantee good sales. There is always an initial sales surge highly dependent on initial hype , but then there is a drop on the face when the users start to have a bad experience and pass the word.
Remember Lair? Heavenly Sword? The first Killzone?
Of course there are missed gems that didnt have much media coverage too. Unfortunately these titles dont get the sales they deserved.
Media coverage is certainly needed so that people get to know the game. Then there is the quality of the title itself.
Everything is important. Videos and screenshots help the most on already established highly popular and successful franchises.
Well isnt it used for all sorts of things? I believe Killzone and Uncharted use it for animation blending, AI and physics if I am not mistaken.
I am curious if and how GoW 3 uses it in such areas.
These three exclusives are the only and best examples where the PS3 shines as it should have years ago. People tend to attribute there visual splendor and alive worlds to the Cell.
Unfortunately the majority of efforts look pretty much stagnant. If such titles were released earlier and more often people would have thought the PS3 is a beast.
Insomniac didnt deliver this generation as much as they did with the PS2. Their games came with compromises in resolution or detail, while not delivering much technically beyond what we have seen before.
Multiplatform games arent the best examples to look at when searching for unique ways Cell is being used. Those games are developed with commonalities in mind and platform optimization rather than trying to push a specific hardware in very narrow and specific areas where it may excel differently and uniquely.
Isn't the Wii U rumoured to have something less than 6670 ?
D
Deleted member 13524
Guest
There you go, my point exactly.
Lair and Heavenly Sword got gigantic media coverage, and at least Heavenly Sword sold over a million units.
As long as the game doesn't have critical flaws in gameplay, a game with average gameplay and excellent graphics is easier to market (and therefore, sell) than a game from the same genre with average graphics and excellent gameplay.
I'm pretty sure Nintendo won't even try to achieve a 10-year lifespan. Its successor is probably coming in 2016-2017.
Well Lair fell hard on its face though. The company never recovered after Lair underperformed in the market because its gameplay was bad. The coverage didnt help it. Heavenly had a decent gameplay, so that wasnt as bad. It got a million units slowly in a period where good games on the PS3 were scarce and it was easier to impress. It didnt have much competition. If the gameplay was as bad as lair's and its visuals werent as good as it was hyped up to be it would have also been dead in the water. It had some good production values. If that game was released today it would have probably performed even less.
I am not saying that media coverage didnt help. To the contrary it did help sell more than it would have. What I am saying is that media coverage is not a complete substitute to gameplay in order to succeed in the market. Gameplay will also pay its part
Similar threads
- Deleted member 13524
- Games Industry
