What is Digg?182 Comments
- TKn00b, on 10/10/2007, -2/+71C'mon westwood college I know you guys can tighten up them graphics faster than that.
- caddyalan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36Console development shouldn't be so expensive that it discourages development teams and companies from trying offbeat or experimental games. That only leads to more of the same old games, just with super-duper graphics. Maybe it's just my age or my interests in retro games, but since 2002, about half of the games I've bought and liked were on the Gameboy Advance. I had very little interest in awesome graphics.
- MrGordonLiu, on 10/10/2007, -9/+37I've been gaming since the Atari 2600, and with each passing generation I fall more in love with good graphics. I love this HD era. I love the way things look, and the way things play. I've got a projector with a 110'' screen and games like BioShock just look glorious. Highly detailed worlds really help to draw me into the game. Good sound design helps as well. Real orchestrated soundtracks with good voice acting and a well written script are also crucial to creating the over all experience. What I want is everything - good gameplay, good graphics, good art design, good sound. I don't see a reason why one should be sacrificed for the other, or why, as gamers, we should want one over the other. We should demand all aspects of every game we play to be amazing.
- superpezgeek2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29huh?
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16You have practically described the mainstream pc platform. games like defcon or darwinia thrive on the PC simply because it's so easy and cheap to develop for. That is why i don't think the pc platform will ever die.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18What's awesome is, that even with 120+ million PS2's sold in the last generation, the vast majority of game developers either went out of business, or had to fold into Ubisoft, Activision, or EA.
Now they are forced to lose even more money, developing for systems that have less than 1/10th the install base of the PS2 and will cost them at least 3 times as much to develop for, on average. (More in the case of AAA titles.)
Sony and Microsoft clearly didn't give two ***** about the developers that they work with, or they wouldn't have put them into this position.
Once again, it's up to sales of Nintendo products to float this industry, as has been admitted by Ubisoft recently who said that they have to finance their 360 and PS3 games with the sales from their Wii titles.
The sad thing is, that this was all foreseable over two years ago.
Were it not for the Wii and DS, I've been of the belief that we would be looking at the second crash of the videogame industry.
Sony and Microsoft need to look beyond themselves if they ever wish to make this a thriving industry where companies other than retailers enjoy the profits. - Ventolin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17The more people care about graphics the less people care about story and gameplay. Most games on the snes and ds are better than the ps3 or 360, imo.
- SambekZX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Console makers and developers should take more cues from the field of human psychology and perception. Humans have a limited capacity to absorb detail at any one time. The brain focuses on "important" features then discards the rest, even filling in gaps (such as the blind spot we have due to the optic nerve). By incorporating such knowledge, the gaming experience should be maintainable and even enhanced without devotion to super-detailed graphics. I just played Phoenix Wright on the DS, a simple 2D adventure game. The graphics were clean, but the animations were very simple. Yet, the characters seemed alive and the story was very compelling due to the power of suggestion, letting the imagination draw implications on its own. I couldn't put the game down for several days!
- Cornflake917, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I think graphics is an important part of a game, but people don't realize that better hardware doesn't always equate to better graphics. I mean, yeah, you can pump out more polygons, and clearer textures but that doesn't always mean that things are going to be better to look at. There are still games on the SNES that I still enjoy visually. Also, if you provide a architecture that confusing to program the developers are going to have a harder producing good graphics. It's not about the size of the hardware, but how you use it =)
- MarkKezner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10@asdfff: What the hell does the Wii controller have to do with anything he just said? He's talking about their business models you *****. Who's the fanboy again?
- Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10They said I'd never get ANYWHERE with these video games!
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Unless, of course, the people making the games are on a budget.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Bioshock could have been done without the extensive water and lighting effects on a ps2 easily. Would it have been as immersive? Probably not. However, there is more to Bioshock that makes it immersive and most of that is not graphics related.
Progression truly doesn't NEED the Wii, it's just that the Wii is currently progressing further than other consoles in a shorter period of time.
Patents are not going to stifle innovation in the console industry. I'm sorry that is just bunk. Nintendo can't patent motion control technology as a whole without running aground of the fact that there are existing patents for certain computer mouses that it conflicts with. Ps4 and Xbox 1080 will almost certainly have soem level of motion control and probably more than that. If the Wii didn't have motion control then the ps3 wouldn't have it and nether would the next generation of consoles. Your arguement regarding Nintendo and patents doesn't hold gravel, much less water. Take your Nintendo anti-fanboyism elsewhere. - Optic7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The truth, very well said!
- jnosanov, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10SD was the standard for over fifty years... we don't need a time machine to guess what will happen to HD adoption rates in the next 5!
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The sole thrust of this generation was 'To bring PC power to the console'. Now with recent developments like the Core 2 and the quad core processors it shows just how mad this sort of target was. Of course it was always going to be that way but it could have saved them a whole lot of trouble if they just accepted that a moving target was not going to be hit. When the X-Box was announced it was considered comparable to a PC, when it was released it was miles behind. Same will happen next time 'This time we will give you PC power' then by the time it comes around we will have Core 3 and the promises will be broken again.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Some of those games you mention aren't even out yet.
Remember when Lair, and Warhawk were going to be AAA titles?
And honestly, you seem to have missed the entire point of the article. It's not talking about the quality of the gaming experience, but rather the troubles that creating such over the top hardware have created for the industry. - eazhar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Editorial: Paying the Price
August 31, 2007
by: Josh Valone
Does the console performance race actually hurt the industry?
Price drops have dominated Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 headlines the last few weeks and it’s easy to see why. The barrier of entry this generation has risen considerably for the average consumer and early adopters want to see those walls torn down as quickly as possible. The incredible horsepower under the hood of the two HD behemoths are the main cause of these high price tags, and when you remember that both hardware manufacturers had to suffer hefty losses just to reach those prices, it’s staggering to consider the cost of that performance.
Sony and Microsoft aren’t the only ones feeling the crunch, though; developers are having a much harder time acclimating themselves to the new hardware architecture and as a result gamers are forced to wait through delays for titles like Grand Theft Auto IV. With hardware cycles being so short, it’s possible the PS3 and 360 won’t even come close to being fully utilized before they’re replaced thanks to the longer development cycles. Had these companies opted for a slightly smaller visual leap, prices would be lower, developers’ jobs would be easier, gamers would have more titles faster and the hardware could reach its full potential before it was replaced. Everyone at all levels of the gaming industry are paying the price right now and it’s time we began questioning why this has happened and if it’s worth it.
Having the most powerful hardware has been a major selling point since the beginning of gaming, ever since George Plimpton began an ad campaign pushing the Intellivision as graphically superior to the Atari 2600. That tradition has endured through the years with "Blast Processing", "64 is double 32", "It’s Thinking", and the PS2's Emotion Engine. The more-is-better philosophy is clearly evident in the design of both the 360 and PS3. The Nintendo Wii faced a major backlash when it was initially announced it would “only” be two times more powerful then its predecessor; dramatic improvements are so commonplace that it was almost insulting that anything less would be provided. Hardcore players expect a certain level of improvement with each successive generation and while that is both reasonable and healthy for the artistic future of game design it seems we’ve reached a tipping point where it’s being overdone to the detriment of everyone.
The wallets of both gamers and corporations are the most obvious benefactors of smaller increases in horsepower. $400 is really pushing it if you expect mass market success and, as has been proven by lackluster sales of the PS3, $600 is too expensive even for most dedicated gamers. With hardware being cheaper to produce, the manufacturers could drop prices sooner to entice the less fanatical consumers and install bases would grow faster as a result. One of the reasons the Nintendo Wii has taken off so quickly is the $250 pricetag. Its library is not nearly as strong as the 360 and only equal to the PS3 and yet it’s running circles around both. While Nintendo will say that it’s all because of the Blue Ocean revolution, the console being cheap in comparison to competitors is a huge factor in its success. If we consider $400 to be the maximum allowable price for a successful game console and the manufacturer is only allowed to lose $50 per unit, the machine could still be graphically impressive. Nintendo has provided much less than the ideal amount of hardware improvement per generation while Sony and Microsoft have overshot it. The median $400 machine breaking even would still be able to output HD graphics and run the Unreal 3 engine, but the maximum returns wouldn’t be as impressive as what we’re seeing in titles such as MGS4. Then again, the industry would be much more stable. Rather then losing billions on unsuccessful hardware sporting bleeding-edge tech, a machine designed to break even from day one at $400 would still gain the manufacturer at least some profit even in defeat. The Gamecube is an example of this philosophy in action; regardless of your thoughts on the console or its unit sales, Nintendo never lost money on the platform's sales.
By trading a certain degree of graphical prowess for a lower price, the industry would enjoy faster adoption rates for new hardware and thus a greater variety of games. At the beginning of each new generation, publishers are forced onto the precipice of disaster, and this hardware cycle has been the most brutal one yet. With fresh, complex technology, a single mistake can set a company back years. In order to create a game like Final Fantasy XIII, companies have to release a half dozen DS remakes to finance the project. Developers simply are not taking risks anymore. It’s foolish to commit millions to a project that could bankrupt your company when you can instead carbon-copy Halo or GTA and see better returns. Faster adoption rates will make risks more likely to happen because a large enough install base can support niche titles.
The PS2 is an example of a platform that enjoyed incredible lineup diversity after it had gained a large install base. In the last two years of the console’s life publishers were able to take chances on hit-or-miss titles like Katamari Damacy, Disgaea and Guitar Hero. They saw excellent returns as a result, but if the PS2 development cycle had been as long as three years, as is the case with some major PS3 titles, these types of games would have never been released. We certainly need reasonable hardware improvement to drive the artistic side of our pastime, but if that aspect is overemphasized as is the case right now, it dramatically limits innovative concepts because of fiscal responsibilities. With smaller advancements in hardware, the risk-factor for publishers decreases dramatically and everyone benefits as a result. It is not in our best interest to have a handful of epic titles every five years when we could instead enjoy dozens of them if we resolved to sacrifice a smidgen of technology in the process. It’s a classic case of doing what is necessary to have your cake and eat it too. The industry has gotten so wrapped up in baking this cake that they haven’t quite figured out how to manage eating it.
The worst part of overcompensation in hardware is that developers will never even max out the machines before they are swiftly replaced. Last generation, neither the Xbox nor GameCube were pushed to their absolute limits consistently before they were retired. If this generation lasts the standard five years, then it is a certainty that the 360 and PS3 will suffer a similar fate. Sony and Microsoft promise longer hardware cycles this time around but that is a hollow statement. The nature of this industry is that the winner of each generation will seek to prolong their success while the loser will push for a quick reset and shove new hardware onto the market for a fresh shot at the top. The Xbox 360 is an excellent example of this. The original Xbox was defeated soundly so Microsoft put it down after four years and moved onto a new piece of hardware for another shot at first place. If things continue as they are and the Nintendo Wii opens up a large lead, do we seriously believe the other two manufacturers will stand pat for the next six or seven years and allow Nintendo to rake in that much profit relatively unopposed? Absolutely not. One of them will get trigger happy, the other will follow, and Nintendo will be forced to do the same as a result. The cycle never ends. When this fact of life is understood, it’s easy to see why a mutually beneficial neutering of new hardware needs to take place. All three companies stand to gain more with conservative hardware advances. The losers can profit and the quick reset they will force onto the winner won’t happen before developers have done all that they can with the platform.
There are certainly many road blocks to implementing such a drastic change in policy when creating new hardware. Microsoft is a huge deterrent in and of themselves. With endless finances to tap into, the fact that they can force these financial risks onto competitors with less resources is a gigantic advantage. Sony’s drive to integrate their other electronics division projects into the PlayStation is another obstacle. What they stand to gain through promoting other tech may be too promising to ignore in favor of conservative practices. Even Nintendo, the only manufacturer who didn’t enter the arms race, could shun this method. Why would they make a powerful machine designed to break even when they’ve found such success with a dramatically underpowered platform making pure profit from day one? These are all excellent reasons for why this sort of utopian console method will never be realized, but it’s important to at least understand that this suicidal tendency to totally sacrifice profit is not the only path to follow.
Gamers have become accustomed to the arms race, and the fact it is never questioned is troubling. It isn’t helping anyone in particular and yet everyone defends it as if it is their greatest hope. With more conservative hardware successors, the manufacturers can profit, user bases can flourish, publishers can take risks, consumers get more games, and hardware will be maxed-out before it is retired. Hopefully the incredible losses being suffered this generation by all parties, and the general disinterest in HD hardware by casual consumers, will make companies open their minds to a new way of business. The graphical leap will still take place with a larger difference then the GameCube and Wii but less so then the difference between the PS2 and PS3. If we make these sacrifices together as an industry, we all stand to gain much in our own way. Manufacturers and publishers profit, developers can take daring risks, and gamers can enjoy cheaper hardware with more diverse libraries. The bleeding edge of technology may be enticing but perhaps it’s the modest advancements that bear the most fruit. - Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Clearly you haven't played Metroid Prime 3, or you'd know they *do* have a more powerful system.
I want this entire industry to thrive, including Sony and Microsoft. I own both of their last gen systems.
But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be criticized for their limited thinking. Nor should you. - RoadDoggFL, on 10/10/2007, -17/+23To me, the biggest thing about this is that once the bleeding edge is an accepted sacrifice for console gaming, manufacturers can focus more on reliability and other forms of support. If your machine doesn't cost $500 to buy and $800 to make, you'll sell more and have more room to ensure the quality of areas other than graphics. Also, if consoles were to take a step back, the generational leaps would eventually be exactly the same. If the PS4 were to the PS3 as the Wii is to the GC, then the Wii's successor would likely match up fairly evenly to the PS4 and _their_ successors could have as big a leap as the PS2 and PS3 were at the cost of a Wii. Once that step back is taken for a generation, business as usual can commence.
I personally love this idea. I've always imagined that if the Xbox won and its philosophy as a console designed around the needs of developers took hold, this generation would be far more profitable and many more consoles would have been sold by now. Games would be easier to develop, if consoles cost less they'd be selling more, more games could be funded, and graphics would likely not fall behind too far because the ease of development could help offset the drop in raw power.
The problem with this is that even if such a routine did develop, nothing is stopping one of the console manufacturers (or a new party, I'm looking at you, Samsung) from coming in one generation with a PS3-like expensive machine that pushes graphical limits and blows everybody's minds. Oh well, like the article said, it's at least important to recognize the issue, not necessarily solve it. - FiP0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6dugg for the author's face.
- AC1DREIGN, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Fanboy or not, he raises a perfectly legitimate point. You idiots seem to forget that. Just because someone has an opinion or preference of their console choice doesn't mean that everything they say should be dismissed. His comment is by far the most reasonable one posted on this article but you all think OMG he haet sony he bad!!! Way to jump to conclusions as usual.
- Philodox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+92d games age much better than 3d ones.
- MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I couldn't agree any more.
But the most depressing aspect with industry trends is that the consumers who end up being victims of this arms race are so complacent and lazy that the mere mention of the concept "gameplay" or that graphics may just not be everything usually warrants, from these consumer-zombies, angry responses and general hostility towards anything that THEY think would impede the improvement of their chosen hobby. The problem is that they have NO IDEA what constitutes an actual "improvement" because they are trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at the mere sight of highly detailed weapons models with HDR around their cookie cutter violent male fantasy character. They are trained to beg for that which has the least to do with the actual quality of their hobby: graphics.
No doubt this message will get a response, the usual being; "well, like, man, dont you think that gameplay is only as good as the kind that graphics can provide" or some nonsense like that. - theaceoffire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5*cough* it was released for the PC *cough*
- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5if you cant afford to make it good, then why are you wasting everyones time?
- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11New fangled HDTV's probably didn't help. Sony and MS were under pressure to make something that would be future proof, and you need that horsepower to display the graphics gamers expected at those resolutions. Just think, the PS3 has to render 6x as many pixels as it's predecessor. No surprise that it is an overpriced beast.
- grumbel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Its often not so much the look, but simply the frame-rates. I can live with a few polygons less, but when the frames per second are approaching single-digit values it gets quite painful. Which is also the reason why 2D games still look fine, most of them have very solid 30 or 60fps, just like most current day games.
- Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Indeed, a lot of original PS1 games are almost impossible to play because they look so godawful. That is, unless you run on an emulator.
Even Atari games can be played without burning out your retinas. - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Stating the problem as the solution is no answer at all.
Your solution would leave us with an endless array of mindless clones. Then again, that's the way Hollywood works (though admittedly there have been some decent films in recent years like 300). - NTolerance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Blame the gamers. When the PSX was released they decided they wanted movies instead of games.
- triplehelix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6roaddogg, i disagree with some of the things you said, but i dugg you up for a well thought out post.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No the problem is that main games sell on the basis of graphics and hype alone with their owners eventually hating them and the fact they were suckered into buying a glitzy piece of junk yet again.
Done well graphics are great but they are rarely done well. Really graphics are like a good marketing campaign, analogous to how ads for so many things include half naked girls who have little or nothing to do with the product in question. - wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I find the games i still enjoy most are the games on the 2600, nes, sega genesis, and snes (unless they are games I've played to death, and i have). ***
Half Life 2 was released in November 2004 and bioshock august 2007 almost 3 years later. Yet only when you start talking about details and really do side by side comparisons does the difference in graphics become apparent. Hell without any really significant modification the source engine can do all the things that the Bioshock (Unreal 3) engine can do and according to valve that is EXACTLY what will happen with half life 2 episode 2 which is due in 2 months. Compare this to the difference between Wolfenstien 3d and doom, or doom and quake, or quake and quake2, quake2 and unreal (most of which were not separated by three years) and you realize the graphics is nearing a plateau. For over 5 years now any "significant" improvement to graphics have been in the arena of effects, ie improved lighting, filtered (soft) shadows, etc. However during the same time frame you note that ALL of the big break out games are not the ones with the best graphics. They are the ones with improvements in game play or methodology. Half Life 2, Bioshock, Metroid Prime, Halo, Prince of Persia, God of War. ***
It is past time for graphics to take a back seat to game play. We have achieved all that we need to achieve when it comes to graphics. Anything after that is simply improvements to the "icing" which will take time and much more significant advances in technology than before. Graphics will only evolve from here, the revolutions are going to happen in A.I. and Physics. Thats where the focus needs to be as Half Life 2 and Bioshock so ably demonstrate. - jnosanov, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11The next generation will not see such a giant graphical leap because by then HD will just barely be the norm, and the difference will be more like from Playstation 1 to Playstation 2.This generation's shift coincided with the SD-HD shift, and that is why the graphical difference is so huge.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If Sony and Microsoft had announced systems that were only 3 times as powerful as their last gen systems, fans would be raving about how great they are, and they'd be selling.
Developers would be able to not lose their shirts, and best of all, would be less afraid to take chances on games that aren't sure-fire hits. - gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't go so far as to say the last gen wasn't fun, but you must admit the AI becomes predictable very quickly in most games.
It won't be good enough until the AI can fool you into thinking there is a real person playing you. Graphics won't be good enough until you strain to distinguish it from real life. Progress is never a bad thing and If developers are having a hard time with it now they will have an easier time in the future. - gh0st3000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If the gameplay is crap, that does a whole lot more to destroy the immersion than so-so graphics do. Gamers are willing to sacrifice graphics for awesome gameplay, not the other way around.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I promise you PS3 and 360 could do motion control tomorrow if they do it slightly different and no judge in the world would rule against them if they did it right. My Wii controller is very good but no controller can't be improved upon.
They should each send Nintendo a thank you note for validating the concept and taking the risk. - triplehelix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3exactly. lets see what the console pie chart looks like in 3 years.
one of the biggest thing this editorial neglects, is the fact that the ps2 is still selling very well, and has new titles shipping as i type this. - GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I bought a PS2 within a month of release. It was £400 with 2 games. A naked PS3 has only recently dropped to that price here in the UK.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4wow 10 times and 1.5 times. BTW how did you come by these measurements?
But lets just use these "measurements." Your comparison isn't of power but of graphical improvement. Your absolutely right that in the past graphics improved "10 times" where the difference from game cube and wii is only "1.5 times." The power IS however still "10 times" greater. Wii is as much of an improvement over the gamecube as the ps2 is over the psx. Difference? It takes "10 times" as much power to create "1.5 times" as much perceivable graphical improvement as it used to. In the past it was just a matter of pumping out more polygons with higher resolution textures. The problem is that pinnacle of what this can be taken to (visually) is Terminator 2. Now there are things that need to be done which are much more taxing such as drawing accurate shadows, dynamic lighting, and bump mapping to turn The T-1000 into the T-X from Terminator 3. Those features have a higher power/result ratio.
Not saying Nintendo couldn't or shouldn't have done better. Just pointing out that the days of a "10 times" improvement in graphics every 3 years is over. Need proof? Well look at the ps3. Even with all its fancy power it can only do "3 times" better graphics. - Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't want this to sound like I support that type of advertising, because I don't, but you could always choose to use a browser that doesn't allow pop-ups to function or even one that allows you to hide advertisements for pages you don't wish to view them on. You'd be sticking it to them more by using their bandwidth and refusing to view invasive advertisements at the same time :)
- Tacobake, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3If the best console available was the N64 then everyone would be playing PC games.
And there would be demand for something better, and someone would invent it.
If you want to play Donkey Kong Country for the rest of your life, go ahead. Lots of people do it. - mushoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Absolutely. I like to pose it as a question to people. Who would you rather buy a gaming console from; the company whose prime directive is to make a stable profit from its console and games, or the company whose console is just a vessel they can use to peddle their other products and "innovations?"
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yes but they are shooters and aren't exactly niche games now are they. What is sacrificed is the outright mad games (that sometimes succeed) and the niche areas like RPG's while the middle of the road tends towards mediocrity.
Really citing a shooter is indicative of the problem. As someone who has owned practically every console since the SNES and is an avid PC Gamer I'm tired of seeing shooters with a few more tricks. Bioshock and Gears are both excellent but I want to see things like M2:TW come to console, or maybe a stronger line up of RPG's. There is little ground to break with shooters really, much of what is in Bioshock was in Deus Ex (i.e. a shooter with some RPG elements, bioupgrades etc) with the theme seeming Doomish. Gears was more innovative IMHO (but isn't more fun). - dheaddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Blast processing FTW!
- deathweaver108, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Games are about immersion! People want to fly around, shoot things, drive fast cars. Graphic only help with immersion. If the game doesn't create a suspension of disbelief... nothing will save the game.
- Bega, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4except you know, PSN and XBLA are basically a great platform for the more offbeat titles. How is it not cheap to develop for when they can make a profit off of a $10 game?
- EasY_TargeT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://advancedmn.com.nyud.net:8080/article.php?artid=10096
slow but working -
Show 51 - 100 of 180 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is