Slashdot Mirror


The Games Industry's 2007 Resolutions

Gamasutra has a piece up from earlier this week, with some late New Year's resolutions for the games industry. Their frequently-done 'Question of the Week' series pulled in comments from game developers and designers working right now, with their hopes for the best in 2007. From the article: "Now that 2006 is over can we finally stop worrying about who's going to win the console war and start focusing on the games? Arguing about which next-gen system is the best is as silly as arguing about which five-star restaurant has the finest china and silverware. It's the food on the plate that matters to the customers after all. With any luck we'll see delicious games with plenty of innovation on all of the platforms this year! - Patrick Curry, Midway Games"

57 comments

  1. The Gaming Industry's only true resolution: by ringbarer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    More in-game Advertising. Ker-ching!

    --
    "Why did they cancel my favorite Sci-Fi show? I downloaded ALL the episodes!"
    1. Re:The Gaming Industry's only true resolution: by eieken · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I watched someone play one of the next-gen football (US) games at Fry's, and I was horrified when they scored a point and for a full-on 5 seconds or so a Toyota ad was covering the entire TV screen. Personally that worries me more then anything, because I play video games to get away from advertising-soaked broadcast TV.

      --
      Meet new people, and kill them.
    2. Re:The Gaming Industry's only true resolution: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      i brain I found this kind of fun.

    3. Re:The Gaming Industry's only true resolution: by spyder913 · · Score: 1

      At least in a football game the ads are not out of place. They could even be used to fund free (haha yeah right) updates to rosters.

      In a game like BF:2142, ads are totally out of place and detract from the immersion that would otherwise be there. From what I read about SWAT:4, the ads were so intrusive and all over every wall of the map that it is total overkill. Really the problem is these games that have ads but the ads don't do anything for the gamer. If they are not funding a service or reducing the price of the game for real -- by offering ad-free and ad-funded versions -- then they are going to be scorned by gamers. I personally will block ads if they add them into a game I enjoy without a fair trade, just like I have been doing since the day they added ads into ICQ 98b.

    4. Re:The Gaming Industry's only true resolution: by BakaHoushi · · Score: 1

      I agree. There's a time and place for ads. In Madden 2000-Whatever-It's-The-Same-Damn-Game, ads can... well... add realism. In a modern day shooter, seeing a Coca Cola billboard is just dandy. But when a level 24 Paladin finds Sprite bumper stickers all over his horses ass, that's a bit much.

      And speaking of asses... When you're throwing a party, don't make an ass of yourself, and choose the right beer for your guests, and choose Samuel Adams. Samuel Adams: Always a good decision.

      *Gets handed a large wad of cash* (Hey, I might be a corporate whore, but... did I mention the money?)

  2. Oh Dear.. by Tainek · · Score: 1

    Should i be worried that i got a 'Nam flashback when i saw the wooden crates picture?

  3. Depends... by Drooling+Iguana · · Score: 2, Funny

    For Nintendo, it'll be 480p or 256x192, while for Sony and Microsoft it'll veer more towards 1080 or 720p.

    Of course, 1280x1024 is always a good standby.

    --
    ... I'm addicted to placebos
    1. Re:Depends... by edwdig · · Score: 1

      But 1280x1024 makes the pixels look short and fat. 1280x960 helps keep them in shape.

  4. Creativity by Chris+Burke · · Score: 3, Insightful

    FTA:
    Stop using wooden crates in games!

    -Anonymous


    Uh... How about metal crates?

    -Game Industry

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
    1. Re:Creativity by fishybell · · Score: 2, Funny

      I always thought they were called "rapidly deployable gameplay enhancers."

      --
      ><));>
    2. Re:Creativity by corsec67 · · Score: 1

      How about just putting a pallet under the crates?

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    3. Re:Creativity by Annirak · · Score: 2, Funny

      What's the StC (Start to Crate) of Resistance: Fall of Man?
      The first crate is when the developers ran out of ideas.

    4. Re:Creativity by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Ooh! I have an idea!

      You see, instead of wooden crates, I have another plan.

      It involves a large wooden rabbit... as a failsafe, a wooden badger will do nicely.

    5. Re:Creativity by Qzukk · · Score: 1

      Stop using wooden crates in games!

      Hm, what if someone wrote a box-pushing game that *cough* borrowed maps from the various wooden crate game, where the goal is to push all the crates into position so the player can jump on them or blow them up for powerups ;)

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:Creativity by Corporate+Troll · · Score: 1

      Sokoban - The Revenge?

    7. Re:Creativity by Lerc · · Score: 1

      As a game developer it makes me cringe at the lack of imagination every time I see things like this.

      I'm in the last few days of finishing up a game now, I might as well do a quick plug.

      http://www.rocksolidgames.com/images/darwin/shot1. jpg

      Darwin the monkey must break open wooden boxes to gather the bananas inside to fill his balloon.

      --
      -- That which does not kill us has made its last mistake.
  5. the annoyance .... the problems by vaksion · · Score: 3, Insightful

    The console wars really do get on my nerves. Sure, the Wii's graphics aren't quite as good as the Xbox 360s or the PS3s, but Nintendo makes products based on a philosophy to make game systems that are affordable and fun. Family-ish type. there are SOME violent games for the Wii and Gamecube, but its mainly Mario Party type stuff. PS3 and Xbox 360 are very similar. I say whatever you get, fine. I'm jsut ready for the console arguements to end. I can understand if you want to defend your platform, but sometimes it goes a little far.

    1. Re:the annoyance .... the problems by Tatarize · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Um. The Wii controller is really a leap forward. Even with inferior graphics it is still a huge step up! Pretend you have a choice between a 5 ghz machine without the ability to have a mouse and a 3 ghz machine with a mouse. It really is apples and oranges. Sure, I would love to see more realistic gameplay (easier deaths) and more novelty. But, to say that consoles don't matter, isn't exactly true right now.

      --

      It is no longer uncommon to be uncommon.
    2. Re:the annoyance .... the problems by Rayonic · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      SNES released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Nintendo 64 released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Gamecube released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Wii released, graphics don't matter anymore!

      Nintendo will always promote its strong points, like any sane company would.
      And there will always be fans out there parroting their talking points.

      I don't think Nintendo is going in a bad direction with the Wii. But graphics have mattered in the past and can still matter today. Depends on the game.

      Oh, and that's beside all the non-graphical improvements that next-gen hardware can bring. Like advanced physics, better AI, bigger and more complex game environments, and procedural content generation.

    3. Re:the annoyance .... the problems by anotherone · · Score: 3, Insightful

      SNES released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Nintendo 64 released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Gamecube released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority

      This is true, but if you plot the sales figures of each of those systems you'll notice that each sells less than the previous generation. This suggests that "better graphics" is not enough to sell a system. Nintendo is hoping (and despite my initial skepticism, I'm totally sold) that changing the whole formula is the shot in the arm the console market needs.

      Time will tell, obviously, but if the Wii sales vs. PS3 sales in the last few months is anything to go by it seems like they might be on to something.

      --
      Username taken, please choose another one.
    4. Re:the annoyance .... the problems by Kjella · · Score: 1

      I can tell from a mile away on my 1080p LCD that the Wii is no HDTV source - but it's not like they're poor either, anymore than a DVD is. Big "cartoony" stuff like mario games tends to do well with a good upscaler anyway. Would I have liked to see it in 1080p? Yes. But there's also a ton of improvements beyond just getting 1080p resolution, just look at DX10 and the new unified shaders. Ok, so it's only 480p but it got a lot of power for those 480p. For full 1080p with good frame rates you're looking at a GF8800 class card which is way beyond what makes sense putting in a current-gen console. I think by the time the next generation rolls around, you can do 1080p with a reasonable chip and maybe higher-than-DVD drive too without breaking the bank. For now I'll enjoy my Wii with extra controllers for multiplayer and Zelda and I haven't even gotten to the base price of the PS3 yet.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    5. Re:the annoyance .... the problems by HappySqurriel · · Score: 2, Informative

      Nintendo has pushed better graphics in the past, and I don't disagree that better graphics would be nice, but I think you over estimate the benefits of "Next-Generation Hardware".

      Physics: Sometime between the N64 and Dreamcast processors became powerful enough to handle Newtonian Physics; by the time the Gamecube and XBox were released we had enough processing power to handle most of the game impacting physics simulations we use today. The XBox 360 and PS3 offer a lot more processing power to handle physics but (for the most part) it makes a cool tech demo of 1024 rubber duckies in a bath tub but offers very little added benefit in terms of gameplay.

      AI: This may shock you, but you will see little in the way of an improvement in intelligent AI from the increase in processing power; the fact is 99% of "intelligent AI" are scripted events which are far more limited by the quality of the person handling the scripting than by processing power.

      bigger and more complex game environments: Certanly, you can have bigger and more complicated game enviroments but that means that your development team will have to grow and your budget will explode; Konami will be able to afford a 90-120 man team working for 3 years to develop metal gear solid (or approximately $27-$36 Million) but I'm certain the average game will be trying to make a game on a fraction of that budget.

      procedural content generation: Procedural content generation simply means that a computer (not a person) generates the content. Most of the better methods I have seen of this done end up using an insanely powerful computer working for hours to generate content that would be stored on the game disk; most of the time they involve input from the designer in order to ensure the content is correct and interesting. The PS3 and XBox 360 have an advantage in that they can procedurally generate a Wood Texture (as an example) but you can make a much better wood grain on a grid of 16 high-end workstations (working for 10 minutes) while they simulate tree growth than you can on a pixel shader in 1/60th of a second.

    6. Re:the annoyance .... the problems by ookaze · · Score: 2, Insightful
      SNES released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Nintendo 64 released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Gamecube released, Nintendo touts its graphical superiority
      Wii released, graphics don't matter anymore!
      Nintendo will always promote its strong points, like any sane company would.
      And there will always be fans out there parroting their talking points


      BS. This is your strawman, that you and your fellow parrot everywhere.
      Nintendo never said graphics don't matter anymore, that's a plain lie.
      There was a run for the best graphics, because it was the limiting factor, and companies could deal with it.
      But every developer agrees that costs have skyrocketed, and that the market started to decline.
      So, Nintendo said they stopped the race, they never said graphics don't matter. They did that, because contrary to Sony and MS, games are their core business, so they have to take care of it. The other two don't care, they can use gaming as a loss leader, losing billions on their consoles.
      Thus Nintendo stopped the graphics race, because being developers too, they saw that if they were struggling to produce games, smaller studios (most of them) must have problems too.
      So no, Nintendo never said graphics don't matter, but said that as the market is less and less (at least in Japan), graphics must not be what holds games back. The DS started to prove it, and if Wii has a high success against graphics powerhouses, I think it will be the final proof of it.

      Oh, and that's beside all the non-graphical improvements that next-gen hardware can bring. Like advanced physics, better AI, bigger and more complex game environments, and procedural content generation Because to you, next-gen hardware means more powerful hardware ?
      No wonder the game industry was declining. Fortunately, there's still a good company like Nintendo to get gaming back on its feet. Alone, it pushed the market 30% higher in 2006, which is some big feat. And they restarted gaming in Japan too.
    7. Re:the annoyance .... the problems by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Procedural content generation simply means that a computer (not a person) generates the content.

      Um, yeah, that is the basic definition, but in the context of the end-product it is irrelevent (it's a static textrue or whatever on the disc regardless of how it was created), so that's not really the definition intended in the context of the game running on actual hardware.

      Perhaps dynamic procedural content would be better, to make it clear that we're talking about content created procedurally on the fly by the system running the game. It refers to the technique that Spore is using, and the assembly demo scene that inspired Mr. Wright. In practice it's a completely different beast than pre-generating content procedurally, for the same reason 3D game engines are completely different beasts than Pixar's render farms.

      Not that this really changes the point -- even in games like Spore the procedures for content generation are done in the creature editor interface once, not dynamically every frame of animation in the game proper. So the resources are still much more constrained than a grid of high-end workstations, but not necessarily competing with much else. I don't think the system requirements of Spore will be high because of the procedural content, at least, and given that the benefit of procedural content has yet to be proven I agree that you can't list this as a feature of next-gen hardware.

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
  6. Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by smartyknickers · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I love my Wii - I think its a fantastic addition to the world of gaming as a whole; my grandparents now understand why its fun to play!

    but lets not forget that more 'serious' gamers need more serious games; with mature themes. Why is everyone's first thought at the mention of Doom, Quake, Gears of War, etc just "oooh but the children..." - sod the children that's what the ratings and parental controls are for!

    Just strikes me as weird that there can be this dualism to it all - and a total inability for people to draw parallels between films with their ratings systems and games (even though it was video nasties everyone was complaining about 20 years ago...)

    </rant>

    --
    www.smartyknickers.com - find lingerie quickly;
    1. Re:Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by itlurksbeneath · · Score: 2, Insightful

      - sod the children that's what the ratings and parental controls are for! True enough, but it seems like parents just want to bitch and moan about the violence and sex in games, music and movies instead of taking an active role in what to allow/disallow their children to watch. It's much nicer to be lazy and let some government agency do it for you than get involved in your children's upbringing. *rolleyes*
      --
      Have you ever considered piracy? You'd make a wonderful Dread Pirate Roberts.
    2. Re:Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by grammar+fascist · · Score: 4, Insightful
      but lets not forget that more 'serious' gamers need more serious games; with mature themes.

      Why does "serious games" == "mature themes"? Can someone explain this to me? How does violence and sex make something more mature?

      I'm 30. Is it mostly teenagers that think this way?
      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
    3. Re:Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by westlake · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Can someone explain this to me? How does violence and sex make something more mature?

      It's a question worth asking. You look at a game like Fallout or Planescape: Torment. Rich in ideas. Fascinating setting. Not without humor or a sense of tragedy. To me, that is mature.

      Even though there are times I want to shut down all higher brain functions for a quick game of Bikini Beach Deathmatch Nude Teenage Volleyball: The Game of the Year Edition.

    4. Re:Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by markimusk · · Score: 1

      "Bikini Beach Deathmatch Nude Teenage Volleyball: The Game of the Year Edition."

      Holy Mother of God! There's a "Killer App" right there! What console is it for, I'll buy that in an instant...

      Sir, I salute you.

    5. Re:Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by tepples · · Score: 1

      "Bikini Beach Deathmatch Nude Teenage Volleyball: The Game of the Year Edition."

      Holy Mother of God! There's a "Killer App" right there! What console is it for, I'll buy that in an instant...

      Closest thing is DOA Volleyball for Xbox.

    6. Re:Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by captaincucumber · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      I'm 30 too, and I think that way. I only really want to play games with nudity/violence/adult language/people smoking cigarettes.

      I think it was Super Mario Sunshine that was the tipping point for me on this. All that fucking happiness and jumping around. I grew up on this sort of thing, but give me a break, I'm not 8 anymore (I think that's how old I was when the first Mario came out). After playing it for about 3 hours I realized I never again wanted to play another kid game. So now I only play stuff like God of War, Gears of War, Grand Theft Auto, etc. And I would definitely like to see a lot more games like these.

      I want to play games where the hero fucks the princess after he rescues her. And I think I'm not alone here.

    7. Re:Wii is great, but don't forget about adults! by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      It deserves special emphasis that this is a beach volleyball game named Dead or Alive: Xtreme. I mean, seriously, that's the most fitting name for a game about friendly matches at a holiday resort interspersed with peaceful walks on the beach...

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
  7. Article Summary by Jah-Wren+Ryel · · Score: 0, Redundant
    Gamasutra has a piece up from earlier this week, with some late New Year's resolutions for the games industry.

    1. 1920x1080
    2. 1280x720
    3. 2560x1600 (but only if they have time to get around to it)
    --
    When information is power, privacy is freedom.
  8. Mature Games by eieken · · Score: 2, Insightful

    They mention mature games, but I think as gamers, we should all be grateful there are not an abundance of games with mature themes. Most games can be fun without having to focus on putting the most blood/nudity/swearing into the game. The moment we have a segmented market for pure adult games I think we will see much worse games. But that might just be my inner cynic talking.

    --
    Meet new people, and kill them.
    1. Re:Mature Games by LKM · · Score: 1

      Looking at the games available for the Xbox[386] and the PS[2|3], I think there are more than enough "mature" games. I have nothing against these games, but resolving to make even more certainly won't fix any kind of issue.

  9. The Gamers' 2007 Resolution: by cibyr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Stop bitching when better graphics come out. Yes, gameplay makes the game - but good graphics can enable new gameplay and at the same time improve immersion. Even if someone produces a content-devoid shiny-graphics game to show off their new engine (Doom 3 anyone?), having a better engine is still a good thing and there's nothing stopping someone making a good game with it (Quake 4 anyone?).

    In short: stop bitching. Vote with your wallet, and realize that game companies that don't want to develop their own engines will also vote with theirs.

    --
    It's not exactly rocket surgery.
    1. Re:The Gamers' 2007 Resolution: by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      Except that money-hungry corporations are only willing to expend the bare minimum to produce a game, we see this time and time again from companies like EA who just spew out Madden games every year. The only reason something as unique as Spore is coming from them is because Maxis made them rich with all the Sims-related franchises.

      Oh, and I vote with my wallet. I believe the last game I bought was System Shock 2. I had downloaded a copy after a friend's recommendation (as I had never played before but it sounded quite interesting). I've been playing the game co-operatively with my girlfriend over TCP/IP and honestly it's one of the best games I've played in a damn long time. I managed to track down a store in Australia that still sells it online.

      It's pretty rough when I'm so dissatisfied with recent games that I'm resorting to games from 8 years ago... It's even worse when I find myself constantly wondering "Why the hell aren't there any recent games like this?"

    2. Re:The Gamers' 2007 Resolution: by icegreentea · · Score: 1

      well, as much as i agree about ea being stupid with madden, it has to be pointed out that madden for wii proves that ea is at least capable to making some sort of innovation.

    3. Re:The Gamers' 2007 Resolution: by PingSpike · · Score: 1

      There were a ton of innovative developers that didn't make a ton of money even back in the late 90s. Unfortunately, most of them got sucked right into oblivion after the dot com boom. I was certainly sad to see the likes of looking glass and bullfrog vanish. I've been bargain hunting games from that era these days since I've really lost interest with most of whats coming out these days.

    4. Re:The Gamers' 2007 Resolution: by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      I guess.. Using the console's default controller as it was designed to be used doesn't really strike me as innovation....

  10. "The Games Industry's 2007 Resolutions"? by Huxley_Dunsany · · Score: 0, Redundant

    640x480? 1024x768?

  11. Only resolution I want to hear from them by necro2607 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Spend more time developing depth of gameplay and backstory, universe/world development and so on.

    I think we're at a point where we don't need to be pushing every last little bit of power out of our CPUs and graphics cards, and can lessen the pressure on that a bit while devoting some more resources towards games that are more immersive, interesting, and most importantly, fun!

    Honestly, the graphics in games today are pretty damn amazing. I know people have been saying this regularly over the past many years, but we all know that games are getting amazingly realistic, to the point where people can easily mistake game screenshots for actual photographs of scenery.

    The areas where games are NOT so impressive are primarily in the areas that require a lot more than just throwing $$$ into a bigger team of programmers - storyline, artificial intelligence, creativity not limited by conservativism (or the whole "Lowest common denominator" issue), and fresh ideas.

    Unfortunately it's easier said than done, and when all the smaller more creative companies are being bought up immediately by larger companies like Take Two, EA and so on, unique talented individuals are made to work on games devised for the purpose of sheer profit, rather working towards the goal of some creative producer who could very well change the industry with his/her ideas.

    1. Re:Only resolution I want to hear from them by kae_verens · · Score: 1

      well bring on Baldur's Gate III, then - storyline, playability... it's all there.

      I'm working my way through one of the Neverwinter Nights modules at the moment. The only gripe I have with the AI is that my party members sometimes appear to get "stuck" behind small obstacles and can't figure out how to move around them (wtf? hire a first-year programmer - they're tell you how to do it!).

      Those RPGs are still not "AI" in any sense of the word, but they are getting better.

  12. Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by adam31 · · Score: 3, Insightful
    The industry needs to stop emphasizing graphics over gameplay.


    It's amazing how often this myth is repeated. There is no such thing as a tradeoff between graphics and gameplay. They are two different things, written by two different groups of people, and the group of gameplay programmers is typically much larger than graphics programmers. If a game has good graphics and terrible gameplay, it's because of the attention to detail of the people who made it.

    1. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by optkk · · Score: 1

      Surely there is a trade off, as the amount of funding a game receives must be finite, surely. Thus, if the graphics team get 70% of the budget, that doesn't leave a lot for the game play team, especially when you take in to account advertising and marketing.

      There may well be twice as many game play/story line programmers than graphics programmers, but given how much the industry seems to salivate over graphics, I wouldn't be surprised if the graphics programmers get paid twice as much their "creative" counterparts.

    2. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It's not a myth. There are very few designers in this world who can crank out a fun, deep and somewhat novel gameplay design almost every single time. There are, comparatively, thousands of programmers who can make something look nice with the right middleware and thousands of artists who can model nice 3D stuff. I hear you can get trained at tech schools for either these days. There aren't a whole lot of really really good AI guys(basically next to none) or multithreaded DSP guys, but there don't have to be, just enough for the middleware.

      Those designers are worth a LOT, and you can probably name them by name, not by company. EA has one, Nintendo has one, etc. They're all proven guys too, so they actually have clout in their respective organizations. They're roped into franchises in at least an advisory capacity, sure, but all of those are pretty golden.

      So, most of the industry rips off it's predecessors for the gameplay, maybe adds a very slight twist or two in a "wouldn't it be cool if" brainstorming session and passes it off to the grunts. You have to have *something* to differentiate your game, so you pump everything into graphics and if we're lucky style. The cost of doing this is so high that you can't take many if any risks on or with unproven designers, so they never get to prove themselves. In return, while your gameplay may very well be solid, it's either something a competitor did, or something that's straight lifted from the pre-2000.

      Insomniac made a name for themselves continiously tweaking Mario 64 with guns, and now combining two FPS cliches into one. Blizzard gets by by being high polish. Jaffe's a goto guy for genre kings. None of this is bad, but it's not what I consider excellent gameplay any more so than I consider a typical summer blockbuster excellent film. Or rather, it's not new gameplay, it's good gameplay I've played before with a new coat of paint. The differentation is the graphics, level design, and presentation.

      You also have the fact that if the gameplay is golden, you don't need the graphics. Just enough to represent what you need to represent and whatever else you want to pump into it. It only matters for the first 15 minutes anyway.

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    3. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by LKM · · Score: 1

      Game X has a given budget of Y. People decide how to spend the money. Do you hire a more expensive writer? Maybe get more people to create new, innovative gameplay elements? Or maybe more programmers to optimize your engine so you can have more polygons on screen?

    4. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by twosmokes · · Score: 1

      It's still a myth. If there's very few good designers for the hundreds or thousands of programmers who can make things pretty, the designers have the tools to make their wonderfully designed games pretty.

      I can't think of one game with great gameplay that didn't also have great graphics (I'm sure there are some, I just can't think of any). I can think of a ton of games that looked great but had crap gameplay. But that just means that great designers are in short supply, not that gameplay and graphics are mutually exclusive.

      Nintendo didn't need to keep the graphics of the Wii conservative to make the games fun. They would have been just as fun with improved graphics. They needed to do it to implement the new features and keep the system at a price point that would be acceptable.

    5. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      "the group of gameplay programmers is typically much larger than graphics programmers"

      You forgot about gameplay designers. People who write the storyline, game universe and history, and design the overall feel and environment of the game. I assure you this team gets the least room to come up with innovative/new ideas due to companies' fear of the product not being a huge profit-maker.

    6. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by KDR_11k · · Score: 1

      Remember that programmers these days develop the engine and general rules of the game, level design, enemy placement, etc are handled by the level designers (probably close to the artists since the environment stuff has to be done by those) and finetuning the balance to make sure there aren't any overpowered options is the final step of development (as long as the rules aren't fixed there's no point in finetuning the exact values) and wouldn't happen any faster with more money thrown at it. More and more of the specific gameplay is put into script or datafiles instead of the code so coders really become less important to the whole "good gameplay" deal.

      --
      Justice is the sheep getting arrested while an impartial judge declares the vote void.
    7. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by buffer-overflowed · · Score: 1

      No it really isn't a myth. There are a handful of decent designers, who work on a few projects at once, for years, and hundreds of games released a year. This means most games aren't that great. Seriously, w/o the aid of google or wikipedia start naming those designers.

      You also have the fact that there are these things called budgets, which means every dollar you spend on graphics is a dollar you didn't spend on level design and game design. It's not an endless supply of cash and if you're shooting for those pretty screenshots on the box art, which, let's face it, describes about 95% of all games released in a given year, you're skimping on the design.

      And don't come back to me with "story" or "mature themes" I can count the number of games you'll probably try to list that rose above B-movie in those departments w/o resorting to toes or non-opposable digits.

      The very fact that you can't think of a game that had excellent gameplay and poor graphics(for the time even) shows you aren't qualified to speak on this matter. Here's 3 for starters: Nethack, Tetris, any given MUD. Two of those are text based, meaning no real graphics to speak of, and the third is just collections of 4 blocks. Your average MUD still beats the pants off the most modern MMOs in the gameplay department(god help us if some PVE-heavy MMO maker ever implements a "remort" system), no dungeon crawler compares to the depth Nethack has, and Tetris had and to some degree still retains so much universal appeal it broke up marriages.

      Then we also have games that graphically, today, aren't so hot, but the gameplay is so solid it doesn't matter. Read some children's impressions of the original Legend of Zelda(there was an article here a while back on introducing kids to retro games). It, not so suprisingly, holds up. As do a ton of sprite-based SNES titles, Genesis games, and other classics. You will, however find, with the shift to the PS and it's emphasis on graphics(and FMV) that there coincidentally became less and less games like this made(Although I will still play Vagrant Story, FFVII, Intelligent Qube just to name a few on the PSX), games also became far easier with the switch to 3D but that's a different topic. However, to get away from consoles again, Planescape Torment and Fallout 1/2 are still pretty much unequaled in the CRPG department. Some may toss Baldur's Gate 1/2 in there as well, but I think that's because of "go for the eyes boo!" Lucasarts adventure games remain golden even though they're *incredibly* dated graphically. And yes, I've introduced them to people who *didn't* play them when they were released.

      Or to use a more modern example, Wii Sports is *the* game of last year. Graphically, it's atrocious, but it can get a 75 year old family patriarch, a 50 year-old mother of 3, and a 26 year-old woman with no interest in games interested in and actively hunting down a copy of it and the console that it runs on. Gears of War had me and my brother and a few of my cousins playing in the basement. Wii Sports had the whole clan involved. Resistance was a no show because none of us are dumb enough to spend that kind of scratch on a toy. That's gameplay, if you have it, the graphics only really need to be servicable. Beyond that it's icing. Or, to use the old standby GAMEPLAY > GRAPHICS. Or, to extend my metaphor, you can't subsist on a cake that's 90% icing and 10% marked-down goods aisle budget angelfood cake, but a good chocolate cake with a thin layer of icing is perfect. More icing might make that cake even better, but nothing's saving that rock-hard moldy bit of angelfood.

      To continue with the games that are great w/o high end graphics thought, and to use another modern example, popcap games are hugely popular, as are video card and board games. None of those are huge in the graphics department, wouldn't be helped by being huge in the graphics department(would you really want to play an updated version of freakin' Battle Chess?), and each one is quality. Graphics are ici

      --
      The key to the enjoyment of pop music is to replace any instance of "love" with "C.H.U.D."
    8. Re:Graphics vs Gameplay Myth by twosmokes · · Score: 1

      I'm not too interested in your response, as I've already written you as either someone with no real knowledge or long-term experience with games aka the neauveu-hardcore gamer, OR a Sony sad-loser-play-alone-in-my-parents-basement-lawl-n intendo-is-kiddy idiot fanboy. Plus I seriously doubt your taste in games and ability to appreciate games outside your prefered genres, even if you don't personally enjoy them.

      So much for an intelligent discussion, but whatever..

      Nethack, Tetris, any given MUD
      When Tetris came out is was as graphically advanced as it was going to get. And I'm ignoring Nethack and MUDs since I thought we were talking about the games industry and not hobbyists.

      Read some children's impressions of the original Legend of Zelda
      I'm sure they're great. Now find me a kid who'll spend 40 bucks on it.

      Wii Sports is *the* game of last year.
      OK. How much did it cost? Wii Sports had no graphics because it had no budget. The gameplay wasn't great. What's innovative about baseball or tennis? The controller sold the game. Not the other way around.

      Graphics are icing
      Which is exactly my point. If you're making a wonderfully designed and fun game, crap graphics can only hurt it. Improving the graphics doesn't magically make the game less fun to play. And making it look like shit doesn't make it more fun.

      I don't know why you think I have something against Nintendo. I don't. I'm planning on pickup up a Wii as soon as I can find one. I understand why Nintendo didn't bump the graphics up on the console. It was to get the new features in at a price that was acceptable to them and to the public. Nintendo never said that in order to improve the gameplay, we need to degrade graphics. You're looking for a dichotomy that doesn't exist.

  13. Wii is for adults, "mature" games are for children by LKM · · Score: 2, Insightful
    but lets not forget that more 'serious' gamers need more serious games; with mature themes.

    I think it's the other way around. It's mainly children who buy games for their "mature themes." A survey I recently read on Kotaku.com seems to come to the same conclusion: Children prefer the "mature" consoles.

    According to a recent poll by Weekly Reader, kids prefer the Playstation 3 over the 360 or Wii. The poll asked kids 5 to 18 which gaming system, PS3, Nintendo Wii or Xbox 360, they would prefer to have.

    Survey: Children Prefer PS3 Most, Wii Least

    This fits my personal experience. Adults never have an issue playing games like Super Monkey Ball, while kids complain that it's too childish. I think it's quite simple: Kids want to be like adults and thus prefer "adult" games, while adults already are adults and can stop pretending and start playing what they actually like.

    In other words, Mario Kart is more mature than Doom. It's the Xbox that has childish games, not the Wii.

  14. The only Resolution by Fist!+Of!+Death! · · Score: 1

    Do Something Different. I am starting to lose interest in games after playing for 25 years now (dear old Hungry Horace). The reason is that I have played it all before...

    --
    Nothing witty
  15. Widescreen please! by meringuoid · · Score: 1

    If they can get more games to support 1440x900 they've got my vote...

    --
    Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
  16. RTS? by PFI_Optix · · Score: 1

    many more well-done real time strategy games. Someone needs to check the pipeline. Company of Heroes has got us RTS fans thoroughly addicted and Supreme Commander and Command & Conquer 3 are due out this year. Find just one or two more to come out soon and you'll have a great year by the standards of any genre on any platform.

    --
    120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
  17. Resolution 201: Make games MODDABLE by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Seriously, I've played many great games (particuarly racing games) with wonderful physics, and
    a kick ass engine, only to be disappointed that there was no way to MOD them (block style track editors don't count. I mean *POLYGON LEVEL* editing). Infact, I can count on one hand the number
    of racing games that I know of that are moddable, and a couple of them are that way due to
    reverse engineering of dedicated players. I know these companies probaly think modding=hard to
    sell more games, but that sure didn't stop companies like ID. Infact ID, Epic, etc got my money precicely because of modding ability.