Saying "I don't care about graphics" usually does not mean just what it appears to mean, but is meant to tell "I just don't need state-of-the-art graphics".
If RE5 were less fun if it had RE4's graphics it is a bad game.
If RE5 were less fun if it had RE4's graphics it is a bad game.
you're suggesting that "fun" and "graphics" are mutually exclusive. no. that's wrong. like i said before, appealing graphics are part of what makes me enjoy a game. so in re5 when i'm blowing a majini's head off, most of the reason that's so fun is because it looks really damn cool. so yeah, it would be slightly less fun if the graphics weren't up to snuff. i think it's pretty shortsighted to judge a game based on individual merits rather than how they work as a whole.
Also, RE4's graphics are the opposite of bad. Even if technologically it's been outclassed, stylistically it's still epic and as has been pointed out before, style > technology.
other examples of this i can think of are wario land: shake it and plants vs. zombies. wl6 is more or less your typical 2d platformer (albeit a very strong one), but the hand-drawn and extremely fluid graphics look so damn beautiful that they're enough to make it my favorite 2d platform game ever. of course that wouldn't be the case without the great gameplay, but there the visuals are almost more important.
plants vs. zombies is more or less a typical tower defense game, but again, the zombies are so well drawn and animated (and they were done in fucking flash) that it's fun to watch them crumple to pieces over and over. could play that game for hours.
so in re5 when i'm blowing a majini's head off, most of the reason that's so fun is because it looks really damn cool
Nothring wrong with that, but you see, seeing things explode isn't everything fun about the game, right? That's what I meant - it would suck quite a lot if the only merit in playing it would be seeing shit explode. That's not a game, that's a bad action movie. But I actually doubt the game would suck without it's graphic powers. Was just putting an example on the table.
Even fucking Square said FFXIII took them about 3 1/2 years, and that doing a remake of FFVII with the same kind of superior graphics would take them about 3 to 4 times that long. Don't know about you, but I'm not very happy to see FFXIII turned out to be some weird action/cutscene experiment just because of graphics I've never been asking for.
I will never play RE5, because personally I believe it to be exactly what bob is worrying Other M will be. It seriously should have been Gears Of War 1.5. RE5 was no Resident Evil, and that's coming from someone who started on RE4. Hell, Left4Dead would have been a better Resident Evil 5...
But anyways, ryu hit the nail on the head (practically) with his first post of this page. I don't care about graphics because I don't care to see them progress any further. Also, honestly I wouldn't mind playing with shitty graphics. Do you know how fun it is to play as TOFU in Resident Evil 2? You're a freaking walking block and it's still amazing.
My criterion for a good game are the following four things: Gameplay (must be good), Music (must be memorable), Replayability (can't be a one shot game), and Story (has to be moving). Graphics never enter the equation there. And the only one that's optional is Story, if it's something along the lines of Prime. That had NO moving story, but it gave you a feel for the world through it's scans.
While I can see some people placing graphics into the above 'equation', I find it foolish and asinine. You have gold already, why are you whining that it's not shinier?
Nothring wrong with that, but you see, seeing things explode isn't everything fun about the game, right?
The impressive explosion a great deal other fun in that situation though, blowing a dude's head off loses something if it doesn't look fucking awesome. It'd still be pretty cool, but if I have the option I want the game that blows the head up Scanners style of GTA:Vice City. I mean if you've got a game full of explosions the explosions should look the best they possibly can, it won't kill the game if they don't, causing the explosion is still fun but having a mighty explosion to go along with it can only improve the experience.
Quote from sabata2:
I will never play RE5, because personally I believe it to be exactly what bob is worrying Other M will be.
A bunch of weak story cutscenes with a some action sprinkled in here and there? :v
Quote from sabata2:
I don't care about graphics because I don't care to see them progress any further.
Why do you hate progress? :(
Quote from sabata2:
My criterion for a good game are the following four things: Gameplay (must be good), Music (must be memorable), Replayability (can't be a one shot game), and Story (has to be moving).
Why do you you separate music, graphics, story and gameplay as if the first three are totally separate from the fourth? Graphics, story, and sound are part of the gameplay experience, they are what makes playing the game worth anything. That's where you get your setting and how you keep an action game from being simply push button see dude die, push button to kill next dude. Those things give your actions 'weight', that's why playing the game is actually fun or interesting.
Quote from sabata2:
While I can see some people placing graphics into the above 'equation', I find it foolish and asinine. You have gold already, why are you whining that it's not shinier?
Why improve anything? Why explore anything? Consoles were fine as they were, why move on to the Wii, PS3, or 360? Computers work fine as they are, why make them better? Music was doing just fine before the Beatles showed up, why'd they try new things with it? And come to think of it, Europe is a pretty nice place, why should anyone have left to find new places? Why shouldn't we see just what we can do with graphics? What's the point of improving them up to a point where they are pretty good and just leave it at that? What reason is there to just not explore ways we can use images to create new, fascinating things. No reason 'good enough' should stay that way. If you can make it better, there's no reason not to.
I think graphics are fine the way the PS2 and Wii can pull them off. State-of-the-art FFXIII and RE5 like graphics are not worth the time and money they consume, if you ask me.
Also. It doesn't matter, because you get used to it anyways. Back then I used to be amazed by PS2 and GCN graphics just like most people now a days are amazed by their detaield HD stuff.
But really, I'm just very unhappy with the direction commercial gaming is taking. Can't believe shit like Heavy Rain is already considered to be GOTY. That's why I'm not content seeing Other M turning into a similar direction as everything else on the market.
For me, graphics aren't AS important as they are to others, which is kind of odd seeing as I'm an artist and you'd think it would be one of my higher priorities in a game. I still play NES and old school PC games just fine, and they still look great in my mind. Yet I also play games like Metal Gear Solid, Uncharted, and Mass Effect, which are more recent with "higher quality" visuals, and think they look great as well. I guess for me it's entirely situational as far as graphics go. In the end, does the game, its world, and its characters look appealing? If yes, then it doesn't really matter how realistic or cartoon-like the graphics are as long as they work within the game world that has been presented to me. Obviously I like some styles better than others, but you get my point. I do have one exception to this: If the world or its characters are based on real world counterparts (Professional athletes in sports games, for example) then I want them to look as close to their source material/the real thing as possible.
A game can look absolutely gorgeous, the story could be incredible (as far as game stories go), and the music could pull at my emotions every time, but if I'm not having fun with the game, why bother with it? And as I've said in the past, I seem to be able to play games that I enjoy a lot more often than most, since I rarely get tired of them no matter now many times I replay them. But again, if I don't have fun, everything else could be the at the top of their fields and I still wouldn't go back. (I can't think of any exceptions, but there's always the possibility I'm forgetting one.)
Just want to point out that "Graphics arent important for me, re4 is all I need." pretty likely means they arent important in terms of advanced visuals-technology, but it is not meant in terms of artistic control. And on the other hand if someone wants to see a visually appealing game it doesnt mean he is a visuals-technology fanboy since artistic control matters first place.
It is obvious for me that there is just a misunderstanding on both sides, not more than it seems. Just saying.
agreed, prime 3 don't have lot's of effects that games on PS3 and Xbox have, but it's visually stunning, and this is what matters.
and i don't think the game will be riddled with this CGs, pehaps in the beggining of the game and in the latter part, but i think that bulk of the game will be based on exploration and smaller conversations and monologues.
The japanese version had quite a bit less dialogue than what we got. weird.
Quote from tomatobob:
Quote from sabata2:
I will never play RE5, because personally I believe it to be exactly what bob is worrying Other M will be.
A bunch of weak story cutscenes with a some action sprinkled in here and there? :v
I watched a walkthrough of it on youtube because I don't own a console to play it and am a RE fan. That's exactly what it is. Except the action isn't sprinkled, it's thrown at you in large, relatively uninteresting, globs. You have to REALLY enjoy the RE4 engine to find any of that game enjoyable.
Quote from tomatobob:
Quote from sabata2:
I don't care about graphics because I don't care to see them progress any further.
Why do you hate progress? :(
The only progress I like is scientific progress. That shit actually gets us somewhere. Technological progress should only be a means to scientific progress. But that's getting off topic.
Quote from tomatobob:
Quote from sabata2:
My criterion for a good game are the following four things: Gameplay (must be good), Music (must be memorable), Replayability (can't be a one shot game), and Story (has to be moving).
Why do you you separate music, graphics, story and gameplay as if...
lolwut? I never said anything about Graphics in my list besides stating the fact it WASN'T in my list.
I will never play RE5, because personally I believe it to be exactly what bob is worrying Other M will be. It seriously should have been Gears Of War 1.5. RE5 was no Resident Evil, and that's coming from someone who started on RE4. Hell, Left4Dead would have been a better Resident Evil 5...
lol i can't take judgments of a game seriously unless the person opining them has actually, you know, played the game. for the record, no, re5 is nowhere close to re4, but it's still a damn good game.
Quote from ryu:
I think graphics are fine the way the PS2 and Wii can pull them off. State-of-the-art FFXIII and RE5 like graphics are not worth the time and money they consume, if you ask me.
time and money is insignificant in terms of technology. or rather, any given technology will eventually become insignificant. everything gets cheaper. everything gets easier to produce. remember, atari games used to be very expensive to produce too. so that's a pretty lame argument, since 10 years from now, today's graphics will be laughably last-gen and no big deal at all.
time and money is insignificant in terms of technology. or rather, any given technology will eventually become insignificant. everything gets cheaper. everything gets easier to produce. remember, atari games used to be very expensive to produce too. so that's a pretty lame argument, since 10 years from now, today's graphics will be laughably last-gen and no big deal at all.
You're right. Companies putting money into that technology makes technology companies able to further improve on their technology. Didn't think of an approach like that.
so that's a pretty lame argument, since 10 years from now, today's graphics will be laughably last-gen and no big deal at all.
Today we stay at a point where power is rather provided through architectual changes(multi-cores, cell...) but not technological. Back then performance was accelerated automatically by the clock and such but it is not the case today. In fact now the software-technology has to face some challenge. Trend is all about parallel processing. But it doesnt happen automatically. Fast algorithms and robust management of data-flow and synchronisation is some serious challenge. If you take the dual-core and achieve a speed-up of 1.7 you can be pretty lucky with that. Some fields are getting more complex and not easier, for example you need more understanding about the hardware to take advantage of it. If you design a nice parallel algorithm but dont know anything about the cache and "false-sharing" your implementation can be quite useless.
So I am not sure about to expect a big leap in the next time. I think a significant leap might come in some future when some physical-boundaries are pushed so that there is a technological progress. I guess the problem is that it gets harder and harder to push them higher.
Already now if I take Ninja Gaiden Black from the xbox1, it doesnt look laughably last-gen and it gets harder and harder to make bigger leaps in the future, I guess.
Actually ark, unless some theoretical wall is broken, the technological progresses will be bottle necked by actual implementation.
I don't have a citation, but I remember seeing a dwarf's face (prerendered) and it looked remarkably human. The article the image was shown in went on to say that it took SIX MONTHS for just that single dwarf face. That level of reality IS for sure headed our way, but the time and money (as ryu pointed out) needed to make such a realistic game would be staggering.
We could have computers that could decipher the entire world as we know it, but that doesn't mean it'll be any easier to IMPLEMENT what we can.
Also, J_Snake is spot on with his last line. We WILL progress with what we CAN do, it's just exponentially diminishing returns on what we DO.
I for one see no need for any deep inspection of Samus' past. Her character has worked as it is for the past 20 years with no problems, and what little backstory she needs is covered in ZM and the e-manga. I certainly prefer her as the silent badass heroine who just gets shit done, and finding out she's crying on the inside with survivor's guilt or whatever the shit will probably make me like her less.
