AMD and the big 3

[Final8ty]

Here we go again....

PS1: "movie-like realism"
XBox: "movie-like realism"
PS2: "movie-like realism"
PS3: "movie-like realism"
XBox 360: "movie-like realism"

And now again with this same crap. Allow me the first to say: yea, right.

LOL So true.

[Lightman]

Here we go again....

PS1: "movie-like realism"
XBox: "movie-like realism"
PS2: "movie-like realism"
PS3: "movie-like realism"
XBox 360: "movie-like realism"

And now again with this same crap. Allow me the first to say: yea, right.

Haha! Good catch!

But there is some truth to it. If you look at special effects used in movies from 80' and 90' then mentioned consoled could do them in real time. If next gen consoles will be able to render blue smurfs in a similar quality to Avatar in real time then that's great! I doubt they will be able to render whole worlds in similar quality though.
One thing for sure, full HD resolution for all titles is the least I expect from next gen.

[Olivon]

Hope that's not the same Cinema 2.0 gimmick and they will bring real stuffs ...

[crash5s]

To be fair they were talking about movies like Toy Story, or the CGI effects from movies, or the CGI cut scenes in games. And to an extent they are there.

It's a shame to, graphics always ruin game play. The race for better graphics and physics has given us tier games, that cost a ton to make and thus must be dumbed down to sell more and no risks can be taken. Graphics fans are entirely to blame for all that crap.

[Final8ty]

To be fair they were talking about movies like Toy Story, or the CGI effects from movies, or the CGI cut scenes in games. And to an extent they are there.

It's a shame to, graphics always ruin game play. The race for better graphics and physics has given us tier games, that cost a ton to make and thus must be dumbed down to sell more and no risks can be taken. Graphics fans are entirely to blame for all that crap.

Its not the Graphics fans its human nature, good looks sell & it happens everywhere.

[Aerwidh]

Its not the Graphics fans its human nature, good looks sell & it happens everywhere.

If that's the case, then how come pretty much all the best selling video and computer games in history have functional (not fancy) graphics, choosing instead to focus on good gameplay, an interesting in-game universe and/or strong multiplayer?

How come the GameBoy (for many years just a few shades of grey) outsold the GameGear (really nice colour graphics) by something like a factor of 10?!?
How come Starcraft (looked down upon when released, because it was 2D, while most others were going 3D) has sold 10+ million on PC alone, and is still selling?
How come the 3DS is still being outsold by it's predecessor, the DS, even though it has better graphics AND can also play the entire DS library?
How come Minecraft, an unfinished download-only PC game with extremely basic graphics, has sold about 2.8 million? It beats all but about 31 games on the Xbox360 and all but 22 on the PS3, and it's not even available in retail stores where the general public might actually see it!

Graphics only need to be 'good enough' to be functional for the market to accept the game. Anything above the top Wii graphics and you experience vastly diminishing returns for the money you invest in the game. And I would agree with crash5s to some degree, in that large parts of the game industry focus on graphics to the detriment of gameplay, replay value and actual in-game content. That's why you see most industry games sell well only for a few weeks after launching (when the hype is at its peak), and then (when word-of-mouth gets around about how it's not really much fun in the long run) drop off the sales charts like rocks.

The only ones who value graphics enough that really expensive graphics are needed to sell is the niche market of graphics fans, technology fans and the so called hardcore gamers, and that market is so expensive to make games for that it's usually not worth the mediocre sales you get. Human nature is to want fun, not to watch the pretty 3D models and fancy CGI that the developers are so fond of making.

[Manicdan]

graphics might get you initial sales, but it will not guarantee you a good game.

been playing FF7 on PS3 at 1080p, the art in the game + the music is shockingly good at giving you an atmosphere that dwarfs modern RPGs. its cute watching a character with less than 100 polygons shrug or sigh or have a rage fit, lol

[crash5s]

Its not the Graphics fans its human nature, good looks sell & it happens everywhere.

As others have pointed out titles with worse graphics routinely slaughter better looking games.

Here is my gripe with it outside of that. Impressive visuals = $$$$ to make. Once you cross that line you can't take risks and have to cater to the lowest common denominator to make sure you get sales. So the better looking your game, the worse type of idiot you have to make it for, and the less innovative you can be. The most innovative games this generation on all platforms have not been the AAA blockbusters, and that's why. By contrast there have been a slew of low budget games, and you can really tell it from the visuals, that were extremely innovative and pretty damn amazing. A lot of them are indie games on the PC, or live/psn games.

So yes, the more visually impressive a game is the more you can be sure it's made for the idiotic masses.

There are other examples, high visuals helped kill off arena shooters like Doom and Quake. Those games are great, but they need to be played fast. That's not possible with fancy lighting, fog, and all of that junk. Having high end visuals ruins it.

been playing FF7 on PS3 at 1080p, the art in the game + the music is shockingly good at giving you an atmosphere that dwarfs modern RPGs. its cute watching a character with less than 100 polygons shrug or sigh or have a rage fit, lol

Yep, and that's another thing, some artistic styles just work better when you don't gun for "hyper realism 2.0". For the PS3 take Valkyria Chronicles, it's a great game but half of that is the visual style just makes sense. Or Muramasa on the Wii that despite being 480p and 2d makes you feel like you're playing a painting. There is a 1080p game like that for the PS3 soon.

[Final8ty]

If that's the case, then how come pretty much all the best selling video and computer games in history have functional (not fancy) graphics, choosing instead to focus on good gameplay, an interesting in-game universe and/or strong multiplayer?

How come the GameBoy (for many years just a few shades of grey) outsold the GameGear (really nice colour graphics) by something like a factor of 10?!?
How come Starcraft (looked down upon when released, because it was 2D, while most others were going 3D) has sold 10+ million on PC alone, and is still selling?
How come the 3DS is still being outsold by it's predecessor, the DS, even though it has better graphics AND can also play the entire DS library?
How come Minecraft, an unfinished download-only PC game with extremely basic graphics, has sold about 2.8 million? It beats all but about 31 games on the Xbox360 and all but 22 on the PS3, and it's not even available in retail stores where the general public might actually see it!

Graphics only need to be 'good enough' to be functional for the market to accept the game. Anything above the top Wii graphics and you experience vastly diminishing returns for the money you invest in the game. And I would agree with crash5s to some degree, in that large parts of the game industry focus on graphics to the detriment of gameplay, replay value and actual in-game content. That's why you see most industry games sell well only for a few weeks after launching (when the hype is at its peak), and then (when word-of-mouth gets around about how it's not really much fun in the long run) drop off the sales charts like rocks.

The only ones who value graphics enough that really expensive graphics are needed to sell is the niche market of graphics fans, technology fans and the so called hardcore gamers, and that market is so expensive to make games for that it's usually not worth the mediocre sales you get. Human nature is to want fun, not to watch the pretty 3D models and fancy CGI that the developers are so fond of making.

Sorry but you clearly miss understood.

I didn't say anything about good looks is more important, but its common in film, music & games for looks to be used over substance & its only getting worse & the same goes with sex sells & that's why pretty girls/women are used to sell almost anything to men.

So no you don't need to lecture me on what makes a good game, but the fact is that if there was not people willing to jump on games purely for looks then there would not be the problem in the first place.

[Final8ty]

As others have pointed out titles with worse graphics routinely slaughter better looking games.

Here is my gripe with it outside of that. Impressive visuals = $$$$ to make. Once you cross that line you can't take risks and have to cater to the lowest common denominator to make sure you get sales. So the better looking your game, the worse type of idiot you have to make it for, and the less innovative you can be. The most innovative games this generation on all platforms have not been the AAA blockbusters, and that's why. By contrast there have been a slew of low budget games, and you can really tell it from the visuals, that were extremely innovative and pretty damn amazing. A lot of them are indie games on the PC, or live/psn games.

So yes, the more visually impressive a game is the more you can be sure it's made for the idiotic masses.

There are other examples, high visuals helped kill off arena shooters like Doom and Quake. Those games are great, but they need to be played fast. That's not possible with fancy lighting, fog, and all of that junk. Having high end visuals ruins it.



Yep, and that's another thing, some artistic styles just work better when you don't gun for "hyper realism 2.0". For the PS3 take Valkyria Chronicles, it's a great game but half of that is the visual style just makes sense. Or Muramasa on the Wii that despite being 480p and 2d makes you feel like you're playing a painting. There is a 1080p game like that for the PS3 soon.

You misunderstood as well because i agree with everything you said but the fact is flash gfx are used to hide a bad game & they would rather make a bad game with good gfx than a bad game with bad gfx & people fall for it all the time.

But personal i want a good game with good gfx,sound & gamplay , but depending on the game the gfx don't have to be good hence why i have bought loads of indie titles.

[Aerwidh]

Sorry but you clearly miss understood.

I didn't say anything about good looks is more important, but its common in film, music & games for looks to be used over substance & its only getting worse & the same goes with sex sells & that's why pretty girls/women are used to sell almost anything to men.

So no you don't need to lecture me on what makes a good game, but the fact is that if there was not people willing to jump on games purely for looks then there would not be the problem in the first place.

Oh, sorry. In that case, I apologize. I guess I've seen too many make such claims and has gotten a bit too quick to jump to conclusions.

Well, there would be less issues if there weren't people who bought things for graphics, I agree. I also wish that people would stop being so gullible and susceptible to hype, buying games just because they get a high score from the gaming press (which is no longer trustworthy in any way). There's still the problem with the developers and the general industry, though, that they often make whatever they want, rather then what customers want. It's probably more obvious in Japan, Sakamoto and his Metroid: Other M being a prime example of a developer doing what he wants and almost completely destroying a classic game series, not to mention angering the Metroid fans. Japan's PC gaming being what it is (virtually non-existant), it doesn't really affect PC games much, but console gaming really have troubles with this.