Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11
Schultz Wrote:I think you are wrong. And for one it does cater to me and i am kinda in your park. but the thing is they have a addon for the remote that will be the standard Gamecube controller. SO you will have your "old" style controllers. Also that list doesn't mention any of the Nintendo games that will be lauched with the console.
And with that remote. Alot of people thought the same thing about getting tired after few hours. Until they played. the reviewer said he played for about 5 hours and didn't feel any tired at all. But that will depend on the person.. You already naturly move you hands when playing regular controllers unthinkingly. Just now those movements will be translated into actual gameplay!
And graphics are overrated. Like now. EQ2 supposdly has "better" Graphics but IMHO WoW's graphics are so much more involving and make you seem more into the game even though they are "cartoony" over EQ2 which feels like no love was given to it.
Right, but why use a standard controller on a system with a bit more power as the xbox when you can use them on the 360 and ps3.
As far as getting tired I have to see for myself. The thing that stands out in the video's i've seen i most people play sitting upright with their arms streched out in front of them. That's not how i play games. I practically lie down with my hands resting on my body.
Graphics will really become a 'problem' in a few years. The difference will be huge. Not for the new people they attact but I don't think I'll be impressed with what it can do in a few years. Great graphics impress me as much as innovative gameplay. But yeah, its not all there is. If you look at Okami that game could easily be put on the 360 without anything done to it.
I don't think graphics will be a problem in a few years. As now next gen's aren't as much graphically advanced as was previous leaps. Graphics in games are about at a peak. were they will not get much better as fast. And there is only so much realism you can put in them.. Who gives a shit if i can see the hair on peoples arm's in sports game. And other shit like that they promote now. I don't see graphics as big this time around. The only part that is making them look better is by moving to HD but i have already been enjoying that playing on the computer at 1600x1200.
Schultz Wrote:I don't think graphics will be a problem in a few years. As now next gen's aren't as much graphically advanced as was previous leaps. Graphics in games are about at a peak. were they will not get much better as fast. And there is only so much realism you can put in them.. Who gives a shit if i can see the hair on peoples arm's in sports game. And other shit like that they promote now. I don't see graphics as big this time around. The only part that is making them look better is by moving to HD but i have already been enjoying that playing on the computer at 1600x1200.
I know what you mean. When the PS2 and XBOX came out I really wanted them as the graphics stood out so much. Now the new systems just dont blow me away enough to run out and get them.
hmmm....well after playing my x360 for a bit, i got to thinking; yeah, the graphics are better, and it looks really nice, but is it as much fun? i think people have really started to associate graphics with a good game. but this is not alwasy the case. think back at how much fun you had playing games and how many of those games have top line graphics compared to what's out there now. for me at least, graphics can only do so much, and i'm sad to say lately there haven't been a lot of games that i found really fun. but my favorite games are usually nintendo games and i hope they can bring this over onto the wii.
Its early days yet as far as next gen and using power goes. I think you will see a big difference between the wii and 360/ps3. The question is what type of gamer you are. Some people dont like older graphics. If you have been playing alot of 360 and see some ps2 games running it looks really nasty. Ive been playing ff12 and the graphics arnt very good.Even a streaming game like saints row(although bad art style) is leaps and bounds ahead in looks as well as all the effects and physics taking place. Hell from software made enchanted arms which is a dog graphicly and is still miles better. But then i have a hd tv.
Motor storm is a good example of next gen. The physics and track deformation are key points to the gameplay and the way you race. Eventually more like that will appear. Certain games belong on certain systems. If someone tries to make a forza type racing simulator on wii
Theres no way it can compete.
I wonder how much of the wiis resources are spent on the controller itself?
I think graphics are a huge deal. Playing FF12 has been hard on my eyes after playing my 360 for a couple months now. BTW, there has been a HUGE jump in graphics from these two systems, technically speaking. It's just not quite as noticable to a lot of people, especially those that don't play games much. My sister can't even tell the difference when they're playing side my side. (i've got two tv's right next to each other) I think she's stupid or something, i'm not sure.
You don't need good graphics to make a good game, but it's hard to make that game great without good graphics.
On a side note I guess i'm getting a wii on launch day. (yay...) My friend with the reserve just got a $200 ticket and can't afford one anymore. Guess i'm gonna be about 1 of 50 people with one in fargo on launch day. I'm just not 1/10th as excited as I was for my 360. I'm actually more excited to have a system that can play gamecube games again lol.
I really think its funny how you quote physics in all these games.. When the 360 and Ps3 are poor at performing Pysics type processing. The CPU's for both those systems are designed for graphics power. AI processing is totally different style of processing. And which those processors really suck at. So really good Pysics games on those systems will take alot away from them being able to do graphics rendering.
Funny thing the Wii that takes a step back from graphics cpu design actually is belived to be better at Pysics style processing. notice i said belive because no one knows the true specs and what processor the Wii was based off of. They are basing the facts of what they have read and belived which one its based off of. But basically they point is Wii went different route behind its processing. Which they belive can provide a richer gaming experiance to the user. Also HD tv isn't main stream yet. So that is a few years off.
Note i wish i could find the article that explains more of this. to have info to back up my points.
Cidien Wrote:I think graphics are a huge deal. Playing FF12 has been hard on my eyes after playing my 360 for a couple months now. BTW, there has been a HUGE jump in graphics from these two systems, technically speaking. It's just not quite as noticable to a lot of people, especially those that don't play games much. My sister can't even tell the difference when they're playing side my side. (i've got two tv's right next to each other) I think she's stupid or something, i'm not sure.
You don't need good graphics to make a good game, but it's hard to make that game great without good graphics.
On a side note I guess i'm getting a wii on launch day. (yay...) My friend with the reserve just got a $200 ticket and can't afford one anymore. Guess i'm gonna be about 1 of 50 people with one in fargo on launch day. I'm just not 1/10th as excited as I was for my 360. I'm actually more excited to have a system that can play gamecube games again lol.
I beg to differ there has not been a HUGE jump in graphics. Unless you are going from a non hd game to a HD game. Which can't really count because they don't get the same resolution. It would be liking comparing a 1600x1200 game to a 800x600 obviously the 800x600 is going to look like shit.
And gameplay is 2nd to graphics. why is the DS kicking the wholy shit outta the PSP with its better handheld graphics then? The hardcore gamer will always think graphics over gameplay as that's what its always seemed but in reality its not and your sister pointed it out by saying they look the same. Because a majority of people don't bother enough to pay attention to stupid detail that doesn't add anything to a game.
Facial expressions add a lot to a game. So does atmosphere. Go play the rainbow six demo for the 360. The graphics are amazing. Then go play rainbow six 3 for the xbox. They just don't compare.
And the DS is winning for several reasons. They have more pick up and play games. The touch screen is cool. The load times are a bajillion times faster. It's much cheaper. It came out first. Nintendo already had an established handheld base. It can also play advance games which give it a huge library from launch until now. Lots of reasons. Again, graphics aren't everything, but they are huge.
And what exactly do you mean when you say ai? I'm not quite sure. The ai of alllies and enemies in games seem to already be much better than most games on the last generation. Just look at games developed for all systems like ghost recon. The 360 version is a great game. The ai is annoying and for me kills it on the last generation consoles.
Oh, and i've played HD xbox games. Some of them look great. Ninja gaiden black looks amazing for an xbox game. Sure, it can kinda compete with a game like saints row, and probably beat kameo (god that game looks like crap) but when compared to some upcoming games like gears of war or rainbow six.... it just doesn't look nearly as good.
On a side note, why do 360 games keep getting screwed? Co-op in double agent for xbox is cool like the last splinter cell game but on the 360 you get the online mode with bots and text briefing "missions". It's bullcrap. Putting that pos on ebay and buying the xbox version.
Haha you can tell whos actually spent alot of time with the 360 and who hasnt. Its one of those things where once your used to it going back is really hard.
I used ai and physics as examples because there are noticable differences. Motorstorm is just a really nice example. I simply go by what i see or have experienced with the 360. Does the 360 actually do much graphics proccessing via cpu. I know that cell is designed to be integrated with rsx and that they share resources(alot of the geometry, i think, is done by cell in lair) but i thought the 360 relied mainly on the gpu. Even if the wii is designed efficiently, that doesnt make it faster.
Out of curiosity doesnt ai actually take up a good chunk of processing power % wise when making games?
Perhaps the best example i can think of off the top of my head right now for graphics is bioshock. Awsome looking game from the clips ive seen because of graphics creating atmosphere. The ai behaviour is pretty cool as well. Take away that feeling and its no longer the same game. As for wii haveing a richer gaming experience. That would all come down to controlls. Everyone inclueding developers from what ive read say cube 1.5. I think simpler and shorter timed is what nintendo aim at. The wii is what it is and as long as they stay focused on that all will be well.
Kameo crap? Bad art style maybe but graphicly its pretty nice. Especially at launch.
http://www.gpforums.co.nz/showthread.php...did=339697 scroll down for gears pics. Thats realtime cutscene equivelent. Probably some sort of smoothing/supersampling to remove aliasing as well. Which those in the US have already seen on tv no doubt. If that isnt a difference i dont know what people expect.
you have to understand how processing works. GPU's only render the information provided by the cpu. The CPU has to do all the calculations to provide the GPU's with the informations and texture's so that it can render it.
Like i said. I wish i could find the article about technical details of all the systems. I can't explain it as good as they can.
Also was quite funny was reading an article yesterday about a reporter getting his first try and a ps3. And he mentioned the only game that he had fun was one which he used the ps3's axis to do things. And which at the end made him more interested in a Wii. All the other's was just the same old same old nothing really new or different.
honestly how much do you stare at facial expressions? how much do you really notice when you start playing? Perfect example EQ2 can have great graphics and looks nice but add's nothing to the gameplay. After playing WoW now for a while its lower graphics actually adds more to the game and the gameplay. It fits together better and makes you more involved with the world (at least to me) then EQ2 ever did with its supirior graphics.
Facial expressions can be very important in some games. Try watching a romantic movie when they just stare blankly at each other during a passionate scene. Not the same effect...
And I do think the graphics add a lot to eq2. If the graphics wern't so nice I probably woulda quit playing eq2 after a few days and never came back. WoW's graphics are okay but the gameplay gets so old after a while. Tried playing my hunter again a couple weeks ago and got bored after an hour or so. They really need to give you more bonuses for grouping. =/ Soloing bores the hell outta me. Too bad the eq1 progression server sucks. I had a blast in that until the population died. Still can't believe they havn't merged the two servers yet. Sony = insane sometimes.
You watch a movie to watch a movie.. You play a game to PLAY a game. Not watch a movie while doing a few interactive things.
Thats the thing i hated about EQ2 you had to group. YOu can't do shit on your own. It is pathetic. WoW gives you choices you can try to get groups to do instances or you can solo if you want. You have more elements to the gameplay. Then just mindless killing as EQ is. And no the graphics don't. The world doesn't fit together after seeing how WoW is done. ALl your edges are blockly and they are a wall. Your zones and bland really nothing too. It is nothing compared to the zones in WoW. you can look into the horizon see other things happening the landscape just flows it all works together greatly.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11