Intentionally limiting graphics.

Sexite

So I've been thinking about this. Who would be alright with a company using current gen consoles, but limitting their graphics to somewhere around last gen graphics, in order to use all those available system resources to add more gameplay options? Like the 360 or PS3 having a game that looked like an X-Box game, but had truly fully destructable environments, significantly increased functionality in context-sensitive buttons, immensely expanded game worlds and just...options?

I'm not suggesting anything particularly specific, function wise, only "Would you buy a current-gen game with last-gen graphics that had immensely extended gameplay functions"

I hope that was clear. How would you guys feel about that? I'm wondering if they've decided no one would buy it, or just...it never occured to them.
 
Yes, but only if its 3d graphics are above par, like the XBox.

I just cant deal with 3d graphics below DS levels, and I sure as hell dont want a 3d game to look like this Nintendo masterpiece:

superman64.jpg



Even if it had all the fun of more interactive environments and more options like you said, I just think that the fans after going so much more forward over a very incredibly short amount of time would want to go back to this.
 
Frankly, 3D graphics are an aethetic addition to a game. Just because a game has the best graphics ever created does not mean that the game itself will sell; the gameplay itself must be amazing for the game to be any good.

I'd gladly take a game with more options over a visually stunning game any day.
 
I don't see why you have to give up a visually stunning game for that. The visuals are primarily coming out of the GPU. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be the CPU that handles everything else you listed? There shouldn't have to be a trade-off.

Not to mention we already have games that look much better than last gen games offering some of that stuff. Red Faction Guerrilla (destructible environments), Grand Theft Auto IV (expanded game world), and I have no idea what you mean by "expanded context sensititve buttons).

Also as an aside, game-related topics belong in Internet Renaissance.
 
I'm pretty sure this concept was the original idea behind the Wii, lol. Despite the significantly worse graphical potential, the Wii has sold more than the PS3 and XBox360 COMBINED.

Worldwide sales figures
  1. Wii – 50.39 million, as of 31 March 2009 (2009 -03-31)[7]
  2. Xbox 360 – 25.0 million, as of 1 January 2009 (2009 -01-01)[21]
  3. PlayStation 3 – 21.3 million, as of 31 December 2008 (2008 -12-31)[22]
So, in response to the OP: yes, people are quite willing to trade graphics for gameplay, especially since relatively worse graphics usually means lower prices.
 
Well a lot of it depends on the engine the game runs off of. The frostbite engine is beautiful. Great graphics and amazing destructibility.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ei1ws_n7Tlc

Also the cryengine has amazing graphics. If anyone has seen the game crysis, they know that it's grahpics are stunning, and crysis 2 is coming to consoles.

Crysis.jpg
 
Gay Dolphin said:
I'm pretty sure this concept was the original idea behind the Wii, lol. Despite the significantly worse graphical potential, the Wii has sold more than the PS3 and XBox360 COMBINED.

Worldwide sales figures
  1. Wii – 50.39 million, as of 31 March 2009 (2009 -03-31)[7]
  2. Xbox 360 – 25.0 million, as of 1 January 2009 (2009 -01-01)[21]
  3. PlayStation 3 – 21.3 million, as of 31 December 2008 (2008 -12-31)[22]
So, in response to the OP: yes, people are quite willing to trade graphics for gameplay, especially since relatively worse graphics usually means lower prices.
Click to expand...
Not the original idea behind the Wii at all. Actually, Wii's not relevant to this discussion in any way. Sexite was talking about using the power found in the newest generation of hardware to increase aspects of the game not directly related to visuals. The Wii doesn't have that hardware capability at all. For all intents and purposes, it's a repackaged GameCube. They're not using the extra resources for anything because it doesn't have any extra resources!
 
Firestorm said:
I don't see why you have to give up a visually stunning game for that. The visuals are primarily coming out of the GPU. Forgive me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't it be the CPU that handles everything else you listed? There shouldn't have to be a trade-off.
Click to expand...

It's just as much the CPU telling the GPU how to run things as it is the GPU doing the actual work. Whatever happens, the CPU still has to PROCESS all the data before sending it to the GPU to be output, so high-quality graphics are as much a drain on the CPU as they are on a video card. That's why in a computer, having a ridiculously powerful graphics card is useless if you have a shit CPU, because it balances out by using both.
 
Gay Dolphin said:
I'm pretty sure this concept was the original idea behind the Wii, lol. Despite the significantly worse graphical potential, the Wii has sold more than the PS3 and XBox360 COMBINED.

Worldwide sales figures
  1. Wii – 50.39 million, as of 31 March 2009 (2009 -03-31)[7]
  2. Xbox 360 – 25.0 million, as of 1 January 2009 (2009 -01-01)[21]
  3. PlayStation 3 – 21.3 million, as of 31 December 2008 (2008 -12-31)[22]
So, in response to the OP: yes, people are quite willing to trade graphics for gameplay, especially since relatively worse graphics usually means lower prices.
Click to expand...

Or you know, trading graphics for... shit :[
 
Game Play > Graphics

In fact, 2d sidescroller games like Mario, Windslayer, Maple Story, and such have always suited my fancy.

3D + Realistic Graphics just doesn't cut it for me.
 
Exclamation Point said:
Game Play > Graphics

In fact, 2d sidescroller games like Mario, Windslayer, Maple Story, and such have always suited my fancy.

3D + Realistic Graphics just doesn't cut it for me.
Click to expand...
Let's not turn this topic into that type of boring bullshit please. Gameplay vs Graphics is one of the stupidest arguments I've seen. A game should be both fun to play and aesthetically pleasing. That's why they're video games. Hell, your post itself shows you care about visual style and that you dismiss games based on their graphics.

Seven Deadly Sins said:
It's just as much the CPU telling the GPU how to run things as it is the GPU doing the actual work. Whatever happens, the CPU still has to PROCESS all the data before sending it to the GPU to be output, so high-quality graphics are as much a drain on the CPU as they are on a video card. That's why in a computer, having a ridiculously powerful graphics card is useless if you have a shit CPU, because it balances out by using both.
Click to expand...
Like I said, I'm really not as knowledgedable about hardware, but I thought the GPU was usually the bottleneck? I know the CPUs in consoles are fairly crappy compared to what we can get in PCs. I realize most of the parts in a console are far below what you can get in a PC, but I meant CPUs in general are fairly weak, no?
 
Yeah, I second not turning this into a gameplay vs graphics topic.

the Wii basically uses souped up gamecube parts and uses a different controller. While the system is significantly less powerful than the Xbox 360 or PS3 the system doesn't really vest extra power into gameplay at all.

it's not really comparable to the topic at hand.

Basically, what i'm saying is if Crysis for instance ran on the source engine and put everything into the actions of the enemies, size and interractability of the environment the game would be superior despite the less amazing graphics.

In my opinion Crysis was just for guys measuring their e-penises anyway.

But I digress, Firestorm: The comparison between computers and consoles isn't really relevant. They both use different methods to get the game running. Consoles can be far weaker than PC's because they don't have to run an operating system or DirectX. The ps2 only has 32mb of ram. The consoles only have to run the games and that's pretty much it.
 
Firestorm said:
Not the original idea behind the Wii at all. Actually, Wii's not relevant to this discussion in any way. Sexite was talking about using the power found in the newest generation of hardware to increase aspects of the game not directly related to visuals. The Wii doesn't have that hardware capability at all. For all intents and purposes, it's a repackaged GameCube. They're not using the extra resources for anything because it doesn't have any extra resources!
Click to expand...

You couldve at least tried to understand the point of my post before shooting it down...not every post is talking to you. You said that the Wii isn't relevant to the discussion, then you immediately listed several ways that the Wii is perfectly relevant :(

What are you talking about "Wii doesn't have the hardware capability" to "increase aspects of the game not directly related to visuals"? Have you ever seen its controller? Memory isn't the only resource that computers use, you know....

It doesn't have "extra" resources, it has *different* resources that many developers have already found creative ways to use. That was the whole point of my post that you clearly missed. The Wii uses its resources to do different things. Nintendo was more focused on gameplay to attract a broader variety of users, while Microsoft and Sony were more focused on wowing people with graphics and reproducing a working formula. The fact that Nintendo is winning this generation of console wars by so much is indicative of the fact that people already care more about gameplay than graphics, so the idea presented in the OP (and others in this thread) is spot-on.

If I understood the OP correctly, he was trying to point out that resources are there but aren't used...and I'm saying that the extra resources aren't even necessary to improve gameplay and that game designers don't need 1024 million terabytes of memory to make games that have great gameplay, using the Wii as evidence. No amount of hardware is ever going to fix a shitty game idea, which is what I was saying from the start. To improve gameplay, designers should be looking in their own brains and not into computer specs.

If my first post in this thread wasn't clear, I hope this cleared up what I was trying to say.
 
So you're trying to say that the wii was intentional weak hardware wise so that developers would focus on gameplay instead? You seem to have missed the memo that 95% of wii games are shovelware crap that let you waggle your arm.

Really, if you think any developer is so focused on graphics that they make a crap game then you haven't been looking. Gears of War and Killzone 2 are both amazingly graphically and are also fun to play. I would definitely take a graphics hit for other aspects of the game, like with GTA IV. Physics engines also rock my socks.
 
Gay Dolphin, the thing is that there's no trade-off required there. There's nothing competing there. The Wii Remote is a peripheral, like Natal or Glowing Dildo + Eye Toy. You can't make a concious choice with the Wii. It's just going to have limited everything.

And as far as Wii games go, there are few games that have used Motion Controls effectively enough for me to want to get a Wii version over 360, PS3, or PC. It all boils down to "Would you rather have this game that looks bad, or this game will plays just as good but doesn't burn your eyes off on a high definition tv?"

I think this topic is discussing if we'd give up visuals for more power elsewhere, not visuals for motion controls that seem tacked on to look funny in commercials =P
 
bearzly said:
So you're trying to say that the wii was intentional weak hardware wise so that developers would focus on gameplay instead? You seem to have missed the memo that 95% of wii games are shovelware crap that let you waggle your arm.

Really, if you think any developer is so focused on graphics that they make a crap game then you haven't been looking. Gears of War and Killzone 2 are both amazingly graphically and are also fun to play. I would definitely take a graphics hit for other aspects of the game, like with GTA IV. Physics engines also rock my socks.
Click to expand...

Theres a 4chan /v/ poster if I ever saw one.

http://images3.wikia.nocookie.net/vsrecommendedgames/images/c/cd/Wii_Recommended_Games.jpg

I own a wii and I download pretty much any good game that comes out for it. It's a fantastic console. The ps1 had a LOT of shovelware and is seen as a pretty bitchin console. Many wii games are amazingly fun as well as stylish, graphics are not everything. Also, if you're after generic shootan the wii has The Conduit, it holds up to whatever halo you play on your brobox360 with fun campaign and epic multiplayer.

-woooo console warz editted out for stupidity-
 
Firestorm said:
Gay Dolphin, the thing is that there's no trade-off required there. There's nothing competing there. The Wii Remote is a peripheral, like Natal or Glowing Dildo + Eye Toy. You can't make a concious choice with the Wii. It's just going to have limited everything.

And as far as Wii games go, there are few games that have used Motion Controls effectively enough for me to want to get a Wii version over 360, PS3, or PC. It all boils down to "Would you rather have this game that looks bad, or this game will plays just as good but doesn't burn your eyes off on a high definition tv?"

I think this topic is discussing if we'd give up visuals for more power elsewhere, not visuals for motion controls that seem tacked on to look funny in commercials =P
Click to expand...

You CAN make a conscious choice with the Wii, you can simply not develop for it. I don't understand why you keep arguing with me, I was just responding to the question posed in the OP:

"Would you buy a current-gen game with last-gen graphics that had immensely extended gameplay functions"

My answer is "yes, and wii owners already do this to some extent". The Wii has poorer graphics but more potential to extend gameplay functions, which is exactly what the OP was asking. I think you might be looking too far into my post.

I'm not saying anything about your opinion of the consoles. You may not be interested in the Wii at this present time, but the fact is that a lot of people are, and that it is surprisingly relevant to the question posed in the OP. The world doesn't revolve around your opinions. Also, Firestorm, if you don't want other people to be talking about console wars in this thread, maybe you shouldn't be bringing up your own opinions of each console and then saying which one you like more? It's pretty hard to tell other people to stop doing something that you are doing yourself. I don't care either way, I thought I would just suggest something to help stop other people from doing the same thing that you edited from sexites post >_<

I can't even make a single post anymore without people thinking that I'm trying to start an argument :(
 
Er, kind of odd for you to say people are making you seem like you're trying to argue when you're getting on the offensive so hard against me >__>; I was just saying that putting something on Wii doesn't necessarily mean that they've gone "gameplay over graphics" as much as most of the time the gameplay does not benefit from being on Wii. It's the same experience with lessened visuals. I don't know if it's because they aren't trying or because they can't get their heads around the platform or what, because at this point in time the DS was really coming into its own.

I do agree that the Wii has done a good job of proving that the new audience doesn't care too much about how nice it looks. After all, a fair amount of them either don't have HDTVs or don't know how to use them anyway (whoever decided to ship PS3s and 360 Cores/Arcades with just composite cables should go burn). However, marketing and a launch game can only get Nintendo so far. Thankfully they've showed some amazing games that will bring sales back up, but honestly, which of the best sellers have used the Wii Remote effectively?

* Wii Sports (45.71 million)[67] Definitely yes (minigame collection)
* Wii Play (22.98 million)[67] It sells because of the controller, not because of the game
* Wii Fit (18.22 million)[67] It comes with a different controller altogether
* Mario Kart Wii (15.4 million)[67] Not really, no.
* Super Smash Bros. Brawl (8.43 million)[67] No
* Super Mario Galaxy (8.02 million)[68] No
* Mario Party 8 (6.72 million)[68] Yes (minigame collection)
* The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess (4.52 million)[68] GCN port, no.
* Link's Crossbow Training (3.76 million)[67] Yes, I think (I bought this like a year ago and haven't played it. I am such a whore for this franchise >_<)
* Mario & Sonic at the Olympic Games (3.4 million)[69] Yes (minigame collection)
Click to expand...
So again, I agree that Wii has proven that you don't need the most visually appealing game to sell, but I disagree that it's providing different gameplay experiences as a result of that. It's providing them despite it.

Also, I haven't really gone around bashing Wii. I can see what it's trying to do, but I'm putting up an argument that it's not doing it. I'm not on the other hand derailing the topic with "lulz go use ur shoterbox to drink and (BAN ME PLEASE) in fratz" or whatever incoherency that jjfun was posting."

Expressing rational arguments is fine obviously. I haven't said anything about what console I prefer in this topic either.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top