|
|
Welcome to the Exploding Garrmondo Weiner Interactive Swiss Army Penis. |
GFF is a community of gaming and music enthusiasts. We have a team of dedicated moderators, constant member-organized activities, and plenty of custom features, including our unique journal system. If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ or our GFWiki. You will have to register before you can post. Membership is completely free (and gets rid of the pesky advertisement unit underneath this message).
|
|
Thread Tools |
This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
They were pushing 3d graphics as a selling point for the original Playstation, because the Saturn completely blew the ps1 out of the water for 2d gaming. That way they killed a potential selling point of the Saturn with hype alone, and it didn't matter that 3d games looked like a turd on the Playstation because by the time the better hardware came out, they could shift their marketing to "look, we have more games! It's the games that matter".
Ironically they could do something similar with the Playstation 2 a generation later. As for why they still do the anti-2d marketing thing, they are probably retards or something. It's not like they want to stop crap games filling the market, because they can have just as many shitty two-bit 3d titles (and they do). I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
X. Y. No Z. I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
I honestly wish that more 2D games would come out. Right now people have such a hardon for graphics that something gets forgetten in the process: Actual gameplay and enjoyment. When 2D games were in their heyday, that's what developers had to focus on when making the game, since 2D graphics would only take them so far. It became up to the game itself to determine if it were good or not, rather than the pretty screenshots put up to sell the game in advance.
Me, I find most 3D games very ugly, and really wish that there would be a push to either produce better games or go back to when games actually meant something. I miss the fun that games used to have. Playing Gauntlet or Contra or R-Type or Tetris for hours on end. What is there now that compares? Not too terribly much, and when a game gets re-made 3D, it mostly ends up sucking hardcore. There are a few exceptions (I enjoyed Pitfall 3D), but they all seem to "lose" something in the translation, and end up being far worse than the older originals. It's too bad really. FELIPE NO |
The problem is that this argument is flawed. You see in the conditional you've used the consequent doesn't follow from the antecedent. We can break this into 2 seperate arguments: If a game has good graphics Then it is not the case it has good gameplay (P > ~Q) If it is not the case a game has good graphics Then it has good gameplay (~P > Q) P Q |(P > ~ Q) > (~ P > Q) T T | T F F T| T |F T T T T F | T T T F| T |F T T F F T | F T T T| T |T F T T F F | F T T F| F |T F F F Using this truth table shows that there is at least one interpretation which is false which means this is not a truth-functionally true argument. That means to make the claim that games presently being released have non-existent gameplay because they have good graphics is false. You need to revise your argument. Back in 1994 there was this gem of a game called Flashback: The Quest for Identity. Apart from having a very engaging plot and great gameplay it was also an absolute technical showpiece. It used motion captured animation along with animated cinematics and the graphics were stunning! Truly a game ahead of its time. To say this game’s graphics back in the ‘heyday’ were limited is rather meaningless because 10 years from now it’s quite conceivable that we’ll be saying the same thing about HALO and <insert game here.> What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? You're staring at me like I just asked you what the fucking square root of something. |
It's true that Sony does a lot of arm-twisting to companies that want to publish 2D games here. They pretty much have to be published as collections to get sold. Sony disallows any 2D games at all unless they think the games will turn a substantial profit. 2D games appear mainly in collections with the reasoning that consumers will be more willing to plunk down their money if they think they're getting a lot for their money. Ergo, Street Fighter stands pretty much on its own because it's a classic title, though I suspect Sony might've had a little something to do with Capcom throwing in a port of SF3.3 as a bonus. Metal Slug 4 + 5 have to be sold together because Sony (rightfully) doesn't think they'll sell well individually, and is why Metal Slug 3 alone got passed over. And so on.
You want me to dig up the weekly sales records from Japan showing licenced shit like the Full Metal Alchemist games and One Piece fighting games perpetually sitting at the top of the list? Or hell, just look at the wild success of Dragon Quest 7. Japan's mainstream audience is just as asinine as consumers here. The only reason that 2D games are allowed to flourish in Japan - assuming they're even any good, as a lot of games don't get ported because they're crap - is because there's no expensive licensing and localization issues involved. Most amazing jew boots |
I understand what you're saying JackyBoy. I'm not saying that all games that are 3D suck for gameplay, nor that all 2D games are great. What I am saying is since 3D is the accepted style now, it seems as if all gameplay elements and the things that make games fun seems to have taken a back seat to prettifying a game. It makes it easier to sell a game if it's pretty, simply due to magazine adds and such that can advertise your pretty graphics.
2D games had a limitation to how gorgeous they could be (although developers were always pushing that limit somewhat). Thus, the game could focus more on the actual gameplay in development, rather than spend all its time making a pretty CG scene or making the background flawless. Of course there are exceptions to everything. Look at God of War or Devil May Cry. Both absolutely stunning games that were fun to play, and both 3D. They problem is these games are more the exception than the rule. 2D games that are released in recent times tend to be much better than 3D games (I'm not stating a fact here, simply opinion... ). The problem is those 2D games, although great looking for their style, simply can't compete with the 3D games and their "leet" graphics. A simple (opinionated, of course) example is this: Look at Final Fantasy VII and compare it to Final Fantasy VI. Everybody and their dog loves Final Fantasy VII (except me, heh). They think it is the epitomy of games. For many games it is the first Final Fantasy game they've played, let alone their first RPG. When told there are earlier games, they eagerly jump to them...only to say they suck because they aren't as pretty. That's where the problem lies. They are the "mainstream people". The hardcore gamers know that this is not true, but games are a big money business and developers will put out games to what the mainstream audience wants, which means too much 3D and not enough "game". There's nowhere I can't reach. |
My point is, that they allow noname crap with ps1 level of graphics and atari 2600 level of gameplay released if its 3d, but a soon to be 10 year old cult classic shooter needs to be stuck inside compilations just so it is allowed to be released.
Compared to that the USA had the Hot Coffee fiasco: a bunch of soccer moms whom politicians took advantage of in their campaign because GTA San Andreas had leftover code that could be activated to view polygon sex scenes. Which is UNACCEPTABLE for a game that is marked for ages 17 and up. Mainstream gaming is naturally everywhere, but at least Japanese gamers are much more open to cult games (which 2d classics fall under by now) instead of shunning them in favor of Final Fantasy / GTA / World of Warcraft just based on graphics and hype. This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it. |
It'll be interesting to see what (if any) 2D PS3 games will look. With vecor graphics or painstakingly hand drawn art, they could look great. With current technology, it would be easy to make a game look like a high quality Anime series, whihc sounds very appealing to me.
I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body? |
I am very grateful that SCEE doesn't give a shit about what gets released, though. Euro publishers can get away with anything, such as releasing straight ports of old Amiga games such as James Pond or Impossible Mission on PS2. There's ZERO quality control. It's hilarious. I was speaking idiomatically. |
What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now? |
You know guys, having spoken to people from places like Sony Europe, it's not that they're morons who can't design decent games that are fun to play. Making a 3D game doesn't automatically mean it'll be less fun, which seems to be the tone of this thread. What ultimately stifles the creation of fun games is the constant striving for greater profitability in an industry that isn't flowing with milk and honey right now. Plenty of companies out there have gone belly-up despite having great portfolios simply because someone bigger and fatter squeezed them out of the market.
I'm not a fan of most 2D stuff with the exception perhaps of Megaman and certain Pokemon games, and I only play those on an emulator anyway. 3D has a lot of potential, which I highly doubt will reach a limit in six years time. FFX CGI is supposed to be realistic? Look out the window and think again. nVidia is aiming for photo-realism and I don't think they'll stop until they have it. Wasn't it them that created a "Spirits Within" realtime demo for their GeForce 4 series? Anyway, I don't think that very creative and/or fun games will come out except in two alternative circumstances; either it's a small upstart of a company that is willing to risk it all on an innovative game just to get their names out there, or it's a huge and wealthy company that has so much financial security that it can afford to invest in something more radical and accept the risk should it end up a failure. FELIPE NO |
Speed Demo Archives have a couple which show somebody completing the first game and X around 15 minutes, but you must consider that that isn't concerning the amount of practice they would of gotten out of the game in order to achieve that initially. It kind of makes a difference when you have the satisfaction of knowing you've completed a game on a single credit or single life, and then there's the feeling of "well, I went through 100 credits, and this game only took 15 minutes." What, you don't want my bikini-clad body? |
Haha, yeah, I oversimplified there. I have nothing against the series, but that's probably how the vast majority of zany 50 Cent Bulletproof consumers out there would see it, hence why SCEA would want them to bundle stuff. Because despite the gameplay, it's just not going to sell.
"THIS LOOKS KIDDY" "But you shoot the hell out of everyone" "BUT LOOK AT IT, GONNA BUY ME SOMETHING ELSE" *Walks out with a copy of Urban Reign* Jam it back in, in the dark. |
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
tenseiken's BPFTP Server Tutorial | tenseiken | Behind the Music | 38 | Nov 11, 2007 03:27 PM |
[Attention] New thread tag icons by ElectricSheep | Bigblah | Video Gaming | 41 | Jul 18, 2007 10:45 PM |
[360] X06 ALL MICROSOFT | Grundlefield Earth | Video Gaming | 48 | Oct 2, 2006 11:16 AM |
New spoiler method. | Bigblah | Board Support | 76 | Mar 15, 2006 11:41 AM |