| Original message ([an error occurred while processing this directive] Views )[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
Replies:
|
| OmegaDog 1041th Post
 
Red Carpet Premium Member
    
    
    
|  "Gfx Qual saturation; tech>content still true?"
, posted Wed 4 Feb 11:55:
quote:
I hate how quickly the next generation of consoles are coming out. It seemed like forever between the time that PSX came out and PS2 came out. These companies need to just milk the consoles they have out now so we don't have to spend another $300-$600-whatever buying the new consoles (depending on how many you "have" to have).
Actually, for me, it's nice -- since I'm normally one generation behind the current one in gaming, pushing out new consoles makes the current ones cheaper.
Still, though -- graphics-wise, how much more powerful is the next generation of consoles really going to be? I know there's still another level of detail in 3D graphics that we could reach -- getting to the level of detail of Square, Pixar, and Dreamworks films and producing it all real-time -- but is the next generation of consoles really going to be able to provide that? Or are the graphics from the next generation of consoles going to look similar those from the current generation, despite the consoles being marketed as much-more powerful?
... we're eventually going to reach a saturation point in how impressive the graphics are in the succeeding generation of consoles. With sound, it seems like we're already close to reaching that saturation point. It seems the main concern is being able to pump out different multi-channel sound formats in real-time.
A tangent: Maybe once we reach that graphics saturation point, such that it's not that hard to produce awesome graphical effects -- maybe then we'll stop hearing complaints that developers/gamers emphasize the technical aspects of a game over the actual content (graphical style, storyline, gameplay, etc). But, is that still really true for the most part? Do developers and gamers still think the technical aspects are most important? Or, does the gaming community (as a whole, consumers and developers) recognize that content is most important, and that the concept of tech-over-content is outdated? (In other words -- how many games out there still sell just because they're impressive technological feats?)
"I must pay for my past sins... Let's fight!""I have no choice. You will lose!" | CCT: NEXT STAGE IS 16 |
[this message was edited by OmegaDog on Wed 4 Feb 12:11] |
| Radish 2207th Post
Platinum Carpet V.I.P- Board Master
    
   
| "Re(5):Gfx Qual saturation; tech>content still" , posted Wed 4 Feb 20:02
quote:
I don't want all the games to evolve until they are all photorealistic and look the same. I want developers to make games that look different and interesting, something which they can do on the current consoles.
Differing visual styles should still shine through though, regardless of hardware capabilities. If we want to take a look at games on the same hardware, we could take Jet Set Radio and Shenmue as examples at the extremes -- or Jet Set Radio and Cool Cool Toon for a less-extreme comparison.
Looking at the benefits of better hardware -- maybe, instead of making games look more photorealistic, the graphics capabilities coulde make polygonal games look more 2D -- better cel-shaded/outlined (in the case of Jet Set Radio), better non-shaded superflat (with Cool Cool Toon), more hand-drawn with rough/sketchy edges (in Akiman games?), etc.
Yes, but these types of games tend to come out later in a system's lifespan. XBox, Gmacube and PS2 all have potential to make neat looking products (like Viewtiful Joe or the New Nippon Ichi game) but it seems like they're going to cut short the life of these and skip right to the showcase titles you see at the begining of a console.
I'm probably just being overanxious.
|
| EternalNewbie
84th Post
Occasional Customer
| "Re(8):Gfx Qual saturation; tech>content still" , posted Thu 5 Feb 16:19
Just curious, but could someone write an outlay of the various past console wars? I've been playing since Atari, but I am trying to think of how the evolution of big name competition went. We first had Nintendo playing in its own league (for all intent purposes) after Atari. Then we split off with Sega entering the picture and on the handheld market, the Gameboy. To compete with Sega, we had the Super Nintendo. Meanwhile, Gameboy would rule the handheld market against any new big competition, so Nintendo was safe there (of course, there were other good hand helds, but Gameboy was always on top). So, we had Sega and Nintendo battling each other in that era (personally, my favorite era). Then we had Sega release Saturn which caused only minor waves (though I remember my friend buying one and we had some good with some games, Daytona USA was one of them). Then we had the coming of Nintendo's N64 and the Sony's Playstation. Then, in a little bit, Sega's Dreamcast. I think this is where the video game market got 3 big names battling each other for the first time. Of course, we all know that Sega got their battleship sunk and has since given up on consoles. So that 3-way war ended fairly quickly. Which then brings us to this new age we currently live in, where Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft all battle each other. The 2nd, 3-way war. Personally, I am just kinda curious if the market can adapt to having 3 big names fight each other without the waves being felt by the console gaming community (ie shorter console lifespans, companies beginning to avoid taking risks and being slow to move due to constantly watching the competition in order to guarantee profits, etc.) Perhaps the industry was really only meant to handle 1 vs 1 wars. I actually think I kinda see it that way these days. Sony is pretty complacent at the top of the mountain (although they are branching off and will soon launch a campaign into Gameboy's long lived domain of handheld consoles), so the rivals come to them. That rival spot has been taken up by Microsoft, which seems to only consider Sony its biggest threat. Meanwhile, you have Nintendo doing its own thing that leaves alot of wondering what the heck they are thinking from time to time. We live in an interesting time my friends. I see all three consoles has there good sides right now, but I am curious to watch what will happen in the upcoming console war. Perhaps one of the companies will go the way of Sega. Or perhaps, the war will be even more intense... only time will tell! That about wraps up my feelings on what will happen.
|
|
|
