Slashdot Mirror
Next-Gen Graphics Might Not Sell Games
jayintune writes "2old2play has a great editorial up regarding the next generation of gaming, and suggests that maybe 'next-gen' graphics and sound will not be what sells games this time around. Instead the next-gen champions will be the ones that provide better content and innovation in their games." From the article: "The average gamer is in their mid-thirties. Many of these adult gamers understand the value of a dollar and have a firm grasp on technological trends. The trend is simple: new technology arrives and costs a ton of money, then prices lower as newer technology hits the market. Developers are not screaming for larger removable disk capacity, yet Sony is forcing a consumer (and developer) to purchase a high capacity Blu-ray device 'for the future.' By the time Blu-ray and HD-DVD's are needed for gaming we will be in the 8th generation of console systems. Why force it on us now?"
Honesty may be the best policy, but by process of elimination, dishonesty is the second best policy.
The game I've seen the most hype for lately is Spore and it goes in the opposite direction as far as graphics are concerned. It looked good, but graphics weren't really important at all. During demonstrations nobody was talking about how good the graphics were, they were talking about this new, innovative way of making games. While it's hard to sell a game that doesn't look pretty it looks like it's going to be pretty easy to sell a decent looking, completely innovative game.
I've always pictured the color of OS zealotry as a sort of bright flamingo pinkish hue
Graphics alone doesn't sell games. Gameplay alone doesn't sell games. Cinematics alone doesn't sell games. If you want to sell games, have abit of all of the above, gamers want a full game, not just a cool feature or buzz word. Good games have a balance of what makes games good, so have abit of everything in them.
Let's see ... story, plot, sound, gameplay, multiplay features (assuming that the game is not multiplayer-focused), physics ...
These companies need to realize that a large portion of the gaming population came from a time when 16-color EGA and then 256-color VGA were the norm. Graphics are no longer the big "ooh aah" that they used to be because we've had realistic graphics for years! Oh, but look! We can make it more realistic!
Some games that are mindless fun have sold well (e.g.: Doom) but there still comes a time when people need more than graphics. Sam and Max and those old LucasArts games sold because they were FUN. Magic Carpet was the perfect combination of everything - graphics, sound, gameplay, fun factor! (I *so* wish someone would buy the rights to it and release a more modern version.) Look at how popular Infocom games were (and still bring fond memories to many) with no graphics at all.
Then there are games like Red Faction on the other side. Truly destructable terrain, something that had not been seen since Magic Carpet, but the game sucked! Besides destructable terrain, it was another FPS.
Frankly, with respect to this whole attitude that "it might not be about the graphics", my only response is "It's about f**king time you realized that!" Graphics are one part of the successful game formula. It's too bad that the gamers recognized that balance a lot time ago and that developers apparently are only now catching up.
The Overrated mod is for reversing inappropriate, positive mods, not for voicing disagreement with a post.
For all those people on Slashdot who argue that graphics don't matter to gamers anymore, I'd like to offer myself as a counterexample. Graphics do matter to me, in a big way. And I know that there are others out there like me, because otherwise ATI and NVIDIA wouldn't be able to sell high-end graphics boards. Maybe we aren't the majority, but we do exist.
You people have got to stop talking about multi-DVD games and how that relates to the increased capacity of Blu-Ray.
1) Multi-disc games in the DVD format are rare.
2) Multi-disc games in the DVD format have sometimes been single-layer discs - possibly because of manufacturing issues or possibly because of console reliability (or lack thereof).
3) Cutscenes are going to be done within the game engine more and more as those engines advance because FMV is expensive.
4) Cutscenes tend to bore a lot of people and they really have been the primary reason for multi-DVD games.
5) Getting up once during a game to change discs shouldn't bother anyone with legs.
Blu-Ray is cool, and so is HD-DVD. I'm on Slashdot so it can be safely assumed that high tech is interesting to me, and larger storage capacities get me a little hot. That said, it's a factor that I consider all but irrelevant to console gaming at the moment.
First, let's get something out of the way. The top of the line version of each system is really the only one to get. The big thing about PS3 is blu-ray, and that will eventually be useless as a movie player unless you have the $600 version (HDMI). You get a good value for the premium 360, as componenet cables and a memory card would nearly take up the difference themselves. MS stated they would drop the price of the 360 yearly, so let us assume in november the premium will drop to $360. Nintendo would be considered a value at $250 this generation, so I'll assume they will go for that. So that leaves us $600 vs $360 vs $250.
I believe most gamers will vie for something with next-generation graphics, and likely something innovative as well. So this means likely a Wii and either a 360 or PS3.
The problem I have with the PS3, other than price, is that it is a gamble. First, I'm gambling that blu-ray will become the established format. Then, I'm gambling that $70 APEX (or some other cheap chinese) blu-ray/HD-DVD players won't come out within a year and negate the PS3. All the DVD player technical reviews I have seen stated that the ps2 dvd player was mediocre quality, how do I know that the ps3 player will be superior to a cheap chinese knockoff?
So, for $600 in novemeber I can get a premium 360 and a Wii, and I bet within a year a combo HD player for under $100. Why should I get a PS3? I get both innovative gameplay and next-gen graphics for the same price as a ps3, and I won't be stuck gambling that bu-ray will be the next format. (yah, it took a long time for DVD player prices to go down, but the cheap chinese companies are already here this time, and I doubt they care if they get the blu-ray specs legally).