Yeah, I almost forgot about Drive Club. Fabric texture that is so realistic it responds to touch and brushes? Why the hell do we need that? When I see cars, I expect to race or at least drive, not to drool over how real the leather seat looks and make penis-shaped stains on it with my fingers (one thing that could turn this obsolete trivial detail into something that's funny for 10 seconds).
Honestly, as long as gameplay is still great, gorgeous graphics are something I'd always love more of.
I'm poor as fuck. Pricing is a serious issue.
We don't NEED good graphics, no
but it's a nice bonus
why would you ask them to stagnate technology just because we don't "need" good graphics? we don't "need" video games as a whole either
Trying to imagine the sheer amount of creative freedom you could get on a system like that sounds wonderful. I think you guys are forgetting that cartoony graphics aren't the only kinds of graphics that are interesting, and some people actually LIKE the ultra photorealistic graphics. It seems to me this is especially true about racing games. I don't play them myself, but from what I've seen it looks like they're a lot about pushing graphical limits to their maximum.
And why would this be? Well, I assume it would be because of immersion. People who enjoy those realistic racing games want to feel like they're actually behind the wheel and they probably get an adrenaline rush from the sheer beauty of it all. Graphics can actually ENHANCE the experience. I don't know how a site about -spriting- gets off acting like graphics don't add anything.
Just because you don't like it or care about it, doesn't mean that it's not good for other people. If you're not the type to notice or be impressed, maybe you're just not in the target audience? It doesn't mean that the target audience is stupid or wasting their money, because I know people love to assume people who want good graphics are the Call of Duty bro gamer type. And it certainly doesn't mean that graphics are replacing gameplay, if that's what people are implying here.
If the graphics drive the price too high for you, then I guess you're out of luck and can turn to something else. There are plenty of other people willing to pay for it.
I'm not saying better graphics are bad. It's just that so far, I haven't seen anything other systems can't do. It has a touch pad and some kind of built on Move, but that's it. To me, there's nothing that adds to the gaming experience the PS3 can deliver, other than million poly graphics and that kind of online big brothering, I guess.
The Wii U got to their audience with just the controller. Asymmetric gameplay makes so much of a difference, it adds another dimension to gaming. Better graphics only enriches the experience that's already there.
Sure, graphics sell to the right market. I am not an idiot. I wasn't talking about "cartoon graphics" either. I played the Monster Hunter demo on the 3DS and it looks pretty realistic to me.
By the way, that last sentence, that stab at my financial disablility, I find insulting. I don't fucking choose to be poor. If I could afford a Wii U, I would've bought it, along with a couple of games. Instead, I'm stuck with a family in debt, only making it through every month barely. The money my younger brothers make has to be lent to our parents so we can have dinner every night. I'm currently struggling to get on my own feet, something I can't do without the help of my best friend. Getting financial support for my autism is my only ticket out of this financial hell hole, which failed once and I'm now fighting with a complaint.
So why am I bringing my fucked up personal life into this? I am not fucking biased when it comes to price! Both the Wii U and the PS4 are as unaffordable. However, if the PS4 is only reserved for the elite, they miss a chunk of the market. But again, and this is to make sure if you didn't read it last time I posted this, I COULD BE FUCKING WRONG!!!.
I'm sorry, but I am very unstable emotionally right now and bringing finances to the table like this just struck the wrong chord.
Wow dude
that wasn't a "stab" at all
I was just saying that a high price doesn't make it an inherently bad system or one that's doomed for failure. Yeah, it shrinks the audience, but I don't think that's a good enough argument to suggest that it's not going to do well. I don't think the lack of some fancy new control systems is a good enough argument either, because the traditional system has done well for generations and I have no reason to believe it will stop doing well. It's more about the games than the system, to me, and we have yet to see how the games will pan out.
I'm sorry if I've upset you, but there is no need to take this personally because it was not meant to be a personal statement. None of that was even really directed at you, I just sort of read over posts and typed something up based on whatever I could remember from the random bits and pieces I read from different people.
To be completely clear: I was trying to point out a flaw in an argument, not tell you "well too bad for you then!"
Well, it did feel like "sucks to be you, deal with it".
While I think it might not do well doesn't mean I'm not expecting it to go down to hell. I based it on how the Vita and 3DS are competing at the moment; the Vita isn't exactly dominating, dispite its raw power.
Also, I'm not just comparing it to the Wii U. I'm comparing it to the PS3 aswell. It doesn't have to turn into a shovelware gimmick fest, but opening up new possibilities is what Nintendo did better (sorry for leaning there again). Comparing it with the PS3: Diablo III gets a port on both the PS3 and PS4. If it can run on the PS3, the version for the PS4 seems a little pointless to me, but I guess that there is when the lack of backwards compatibility comes in.
Anywho, all I heard during the presentation was PR-crap and graphics/poly-count stuff. That doesn't sell to me, but that's me. I can't be excited about the PS4, even if I tried, but the new Xbox hasn't shown its face, so anything can happen. It's basically these two competing while Nintendo is doing their own thing.
But that's me.
Sorry for getting this personal. I'm an emotional mess right now for unrelated reasons, so I'm a little edgy. If only I had my Neko avatar right now, I could've gone away with it.
I still like the classic gameboy library
(02-23-2013, 04:30 PM)StarSock64 Wrote: [ -> ]We don't NEED good graphics, no
but it's a nice bonus
why would you ask them to stagnate technology just because we don't "need" good graphics? we don't "need" video games as a whole either
Trying to imagine the sheer amount of creative freedom you could get on a system like that sounds wonderful. I think you guys are forgetting that cartoony graphics aren't the only kinds of graphics that are interesting, and some people actually LIKE the ultra photorealistic graphics. It seems to me this is especially true about racing games. I don't play them myself, but from what I've seen it looks like they're a lot about pushing graphical limits to their maximum.
And why would this be? Well, I assume it would be because of immersion. People who enjoy those realistic racing games want to feel like they're actually behind the wheel and they probably get an adrenaline rush from the sheer beauty of it all. Graphics can actually ENHANCE the experience. I don't know how a site about -spriting- gets off acting like graphics don't add anything.
Just because you don't like it or care about it, doesn't mean that it's not good for other people. If you're not the type to notice or be impressed, maybe you're just not in the target audience? It doesn't mean that the target audience is stupid or wasting their money, because I know people love to assume people who want good graphics are the Call of Duty bro gamer type. And it certainly doesn't mean that graphics are replacing gameplay, if that's what people are implying here.
If the graphics drive the price too high for you, then I guess you're out of luck and can turn to something else. There are plenty of other people willing to pay for it.
I for one don't really see the difference at all between this gen and next gen to be honest. I do agree with you on every point you made, graphics are important for immersion and the feeling of the game, as well as gameplay. It's just that for such a small improvement, I need to pay a lot more cash, I'd rather stick with PC which can do more and cheaper than a console (though I personally wouldn't do any of both).
This is all my point of view and I do understand there are people who like this. That's great, let them be happy with their soon-to-be-acquired PS4. I can't afford any games at the time being anyway so I'm going to stay away from this gen, probably.
Just realized that gaming is also a test bench for technology too, so pushing the hardwre to its limits can mean developments of better processors and tech stuff and consequently better equipments and computers. It's all tied together when coming to this stuff, so in the end, it depends on how game devs will make use of the hardware's specs.
guys i think i found one of the best fanmade Earthworm Jim Models
This model would be perfect for a brawl hack
the thing is if this model was even given away by this guy who made it, who would he even go over?
Not on my computer at the moment so I can't post the gigs but there is a definite, very noticeable jump in the graphics
Well, they're certainly better but the differences are only instantly noticeable to those who know what to look for. As someone else put it, there's a huge difference in impact between everything suddenly having real shadows and everything suddenly having sub-surface scattering. They're both huge leaps but this gen's is WAY less obvious. It's something that will probably be way more noticeable when we can actually see the games being played and see everything being processed.
This generation's (and future generation's) improvements will more than likely be about being able to do more and more things at one time than any huge change to how the graphics actually work. Which makes me excited, not disappointed.
(02-24-2013, 03:59 PM)Gorsalad Wrote: [ -> ]Just realized that gaming is also a test bench for technology too, so pushing the hardwre to its limits can mean developments of better processors and tech stuff and consequently better equipments and computers. It's all tied together when coming to this stuff, so in the end, it depends on how game devs will make use of the hardware's specs.
Yep, this basically hits the mark. Console games tend to try to push so many boundaries while being physically limited by half-decade-old hardware, and they tend to do it very well for some of the bigger blockbuster games.
Now, new generation comes around, and the hard limit on the consoles has been removed. Now gamedevs are going to explode with impressive technological limit pushing (remember when Gears of War 2 was built to handle hundreds of enemies at any given time? Now imagine that kind of stuff on an upgraded console).
Also this generation is going to be one where particle effects are going to rise up. You know, realistic clouds and flames and dust and stuff. Just throwing that out there.
I guess the problem with new generations is that it's kind of a reboot in squeezing out the power. Towards the end of a generation people are figuring out how to maximise a console's power so things are looking really great. While with a new generation the 'step' up graphics wise seems a lot smaller as people are working with new hardware.
Also, anyone got an opinion on MGRising, been thinking about picking it up...
The largest problem with the high pricing is that there isn't a need for it. Graphics aren't driving the sales price up at all, artificial inflation is.
And that's a legitimate problem that needs to be addressed.