All this detail.. to what means? - by Scott Weiland
june gloom on 17/5/2010 at 05:34
Quote Posted by PigLick
yeh but do you like the game?
Fuck yeah, even X6 which everyone else seems to hate.
Sulphur on 17/5/2010 at 07:41
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
"That doesn't change the fact that
the observation we're discussing was that, somehow in the past, 'AAA' games were 'more innovative' in gameplay". That's from you, a few lines down. When even you are admitting your point is irrelevant it's time to just let it go.
I would, but those are two separate issues altogether. The first one is complete ignorance of indies to begin with. Otherwise I wouldn't be harping on about them. The second is the reason why AAA is in quotes - I was being sarcastic.
Quote:
Nope, but the Wii does not prove your point, unless you can show that the Wii being the most "innovative" is not related to it also having by far the lowest graphical capabilities of any next gen system. Else all you've done is help establish a link between poorer graphics and innovation, which hardly helps your point.
Hardly. The Wii being less powerful than the other consoles doesn't mean it has to have 'poor graphics', because millions can and have been sunk into graphics for 'sub-HD' consoles as well. And you're assuming that games on the Wii are less good-looking than technological juggernauts on the other consoles. Hell, I'd probably prefer Okami's graphics to Killzone 2's. When it comes to art style vs. technology, a good art style almost always wins.
Quote:
They were, in general, due to two main factors: they tend enormously towards straight sequelisation which means that, almost always, subsequent titles in a series get less "innovative"; and the need to make more money to pay for the spiraling dev costs- of which graphics development are a very large part- tends towards lowest common denominatoring and a focus on the immediately apparents such as graphics to maximise the available buyer pool.
In any case, as you admit the argument is not that there is 'no innovation' in the 'AAA' sphere- I think everyone will agree that there is some- but that there is less than previous. Picking a few examples of innovation doesn't disprove that and given the state of things I doubt I would have much problem posting a far longer list of the derivative titles, yes?
You can post a longer list of derivative titles, but how is that going to prove your point that there's less innovation today, unless you can also list the amount of titles that weren't derivative in the past as compared to a list of those that were?
And anyway, if we're going by a quantitative basis then we'll also have to allow for there being much less games developed at whichever arbitrary point in the past as compared to recent times.
Eldron on 17/5/2010 at 09:14
Well, people always wants a scapegoat when the industry pumps out games that just are made for the more mainstream.
ps. shadow of the colossus, now that was a graphical game.
Zygoptera on 17/5/2010 at 23:33
Quote Posted by Sulphur
Hardly. The Wii being less powerful than the other consoles doesn't mean it has to have 'poor graphics', because millions can and have been sunk into graphics for 'sub-HD' consoles as well.
It does mean that it will always have poor
er graphics (technical) relative to the 'true HD' though, band for band. And poorer graphics are generally cheaper to make.
Quote:
And you're assuming that games on the Wii are less good-looking than technological juggernauts on the other consoles. Hell, I'd probably prefer Okami's graphics to Killzone 2's. When it comes to art style vs. technology, a good art style almost always wins.
Hoho yes, art direction will generally trump graphic technicals. More pertinently though, good art direction is almost always 'free' at least in theory as the costs it has are ones that should be already standard in good product control, while good technical graphics are almost always expensive as they require extra work relative to merely passable graphics.
Quote:
You can post a longer list of derivative titles, but how is that going to prove your point that there's less innovation today, unless you can also list the amount of titles that weren't derivative in the past as compared to a list of those that were?
If everybody agrees there are more titles released today, but a list shows there were more or the same number of innovative titles released time previous then there's proof there's less "innovation" and more derivation. But it's also a pretty futile undertaking as there is no workable definition which everyone could agree to for "AAA" or for "innovation" so it would just end up being a series of questions like "is
titlename AAA and is it [sufficiently] innovative?" Personally, I think that would be a load of wank and, let's be honest, evidence suggests we won't agree to any posted list. Ultimately that just leaves accepting that we disagree.
Sulphur on 17/5/2010 at 23:54
Quote Posted by Zygoptera
It does mean that it will always have poor
er graphics (technical) relative to the 'true HD' though, band for band. And poorer graphics are generally cheaper to make.
Relatively poorer technically, yes. Getting proper HDR and displacement mapping and the like would be a task on the Wii. But most games with stellar art direction on the Wii wouldn't look cheapened when set next to a game from the PS3/X360.
Quote:
Hoho yes, art direction will generally trump graphic technicals. More pertinently though, good art direction is almost always 'free' at least in theory as the costs it has are ones that should be already standard in good product control, while good technical graphics are almost always expensive as they require extra work relative to merely passable graphics.
Ah, but art direction is independent of technology, and thus you could (and indeed do) have games that don't indulge in undiluted technical wankery to look good even on the HD consoles (for example, Mirror's Edge, Bioshock apart from its 'water fx' guys, Batman: AA, etc.). And a game with good production values is technically 'AAA' regardless of whether the money was spent on technical development or volume of art assets. Okami and Zelda are certainly AAA titles in that sense.
Quote:
If everybody agrees there are more titles released today, but a list shows there were more or the same number of innovative titles released time previous then there's proof there's less "innovation" and more derivation. But it's also a pretty futile undertaking as there is no workable definition which everyone could agree to for "AAA" or for "innovation" so it would just end up being a series of questions like "is
titlename AAA and is it [sufficiently] innovative?" Personally, I think that would be a load of wank and, let's be honest, evidence suggests we won't agree to any posted list. Ultimately that just leaves accepting that we disagree.
True. It'd be more an exercise in mental masturbation and little else. We'll have to leave it at, as you said, agreeing to disagree.
