Results 1 to 18 of 18

  1. Post

    Posts in this thread appear as comments on the following Gameplanet article:

    Read article...

  2. Post
    #2
    Well duh -I don't think any modern console has been priced to make a profit on release...

  3. Post
    #3
    So basically devs will push 30fps because more graphics sells games not gameplay

  4. Post
    #4
    If most people don't care about teraflops than why even make the Scorpio in the first place?

    Seems like that money might be better spent creating and securing console exclusives. Spencer seems to be shit talking his own console, why should I get it again?

  5. Post
    #5
    brand wrote:
    Well duh -I don't think any modern console has been priced to make a profit on release...
    I think the switch is selling at a profit (as did the Wii). But yeah of course Nintendo are not packin as much hardware in.

  6. Post
    #6
    Ramza wrote:
    If most people don't care about teraflops than why even make the Scorpio in the first place?
    pretty simple. they want to get the people who do care buying xbox games rather than playstation or steam etc.

  7. Post
    #7
    brand wrote:
    Well duh -I don't think any modern console has been priced to make a profit on release...
    except the switch

  8. Post
    #8
    Ramza wrote:
    If most people don't care about teraflops than why even make the Scorpio in the first place?

    Seems like that money might be better spent creating and securing console exclusives. Spencer seems to be shit talking his own console, why should I get it again?
    The tune will probably change post launch...

  9. Post
    #9
    They don't want to hurt sales of their current console prior to launch

  10. Post
    #10
    Ramza wrote:
    If most people don't care about teraflops than why even make the Scorpio in the first place?
    Actually people do care about tflops but indirectly, most gamers just want better graphics all the time, every year its needs to be updated and look better and better graphics requires more tflops

  11. Post
    #11
    SirGrim wrote:
    Actually people do care about tflops but indirectly, most gamers just want better graphics all the time, every year its needs to be updated and look better and better graphics requires more tflops
    I'm not sure that's true.

    Do you have data to back that up?

    From what I understand it is the developers and hardware companies that are telling everyone they want better graphics every year. No proof to back up their claim, but it fits with their sales and what's easiest to do.

    I thought the recent resurgence of older games remastered, indi games, etc. would be proof that most games in fact want gameplay over graphics.

    I mean... sure. Pretty graphics, ooooh aaaah. But after the first hour... the gameplay had better be taking the front seat.

  12. Post
    #12
    most people are not playing indie games, those are niche markets, very small indeed

    why do you think games dont have demos these days, its not because demos are hard its because they can reduce sales when people find out how poor the gameplay is, instead making great graphics builds a hype train you can ride all the way to the bank

    aaa development is focused on better graphics year in, year out - and it sells well

  13. Post
    #13
    Nerin wrote:
    I thought the recent resurgence of older games remastered, indi games, etc. would be proof that most games in fact want gameplay over graphics.

    I mean... sure. Pretty graphics, ooooh aaaah. But after the first hour... the gameplay had better be taking the front seat.
    If casual players were all about "gameplay over graphics" then developers would be targeting 60fps on consoles in the majority of AAA's. Casual console gamers love eye candy, hence we usually see prettier visuals at lower framerates (30fps) being pushed over performance.

    Casuals get wowed by pretties all of the time. Hence Ubisoft trailers with graphical fidelity which isn't reflective of the final games and CGI prerendered cutscenes being shown off at marketing conferences like at E3. Also "bullshot gameplay footage" where they show Ultra Settings PC builds being played with controllers to trick console casuals into thinking their versions will actually look that good.

  14. Post
    #14
    Nerin wrote:

    ...I thought the recent resurgence of older games remastered, indi games, etc. would be proof that most games in fact want gameplay over graphics...
    Doesn't that make the reverse true? If game-play alone is enough to drive demand why then do they have to be remastered?

  15. Post
    #15
    gooseman77 wrote:
    Doesn't that make the reverse true? If game-play alone is enough to drive demand why then do they have to be remastered?
    Because our screens are larger for one. Larger screens need a remastered edition in order to actually run the game. Newer OS versions also require a remastered edition. Faster CPUs also require older games to be remastered.

    It's not just about the graphics. Most of the time, a great amount of care is put into keeping the games looking the same, just polished on a larger resolution.

    SirGrim: I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to make the point that indie games are extremely popular and 90% of gamers were playing them.

    My point was that indie games sell well. So do remastered editions of older games. That implies that the supposed graphical need is entirely industry driven, rather than gamer driven.

    You seem to accept it as a given too. You say that sales drop when gamers discover that the gameplay is lacking and that the graphics was just a hype-train. That also implies that the supposed graphical need is industry driven rather than gamer driven.

    The same thing can be seen in film. People in the industry think everyone just wants more "oooh pretty!" yet the movies that end up being the best loved/received, their glory lasting years after launch... are the ones with good writing and characterization. Story is king.

    EvaUnit02: I can't answer for casuals, though I'm likely in that group myself these days. But I don't see any evidence of them preferring graphics over gameplay. That's kinda what I was asking for evidence of.

    Yes, people initially get drawn to a game because of the graphics. But if the game is shit with pretty graphics... everyone I know will drop it, considering their money badly spent.

    You seem to accept that as a given too. There would be no need to trick, on the developer's part, if it was all about the graphics for gamers.

    If it is purely for getting sales, then it is marketing. That means it is industry driven and not gamer driven. I don't see any evidence that it is gamer driven. Is there a pole somewhere? Some statistics?

    All I see are statements with nothing to back them up. And most of those statements come from the industry.

    Lets take a quick head-count here. How many of you take graphics over gameplay?

  16. Post
    #16
    Think about this

    If a game looks shit, but upon playing it you realized it had good gameplay it may make some sales
    If a game look gorgeous, but upon playing it you realised it had sub par gameplay, it would still sell decent - maybe not great but better than the first example I believe

    If developers cared about gameplay, why is the AI in games today worse than 15 years ago?

  17. Post
    #17
    Name:  OoT vs BoW.jpg
Views: 82
Size:  421.3 KB

    Ocarina of Time (top) has arguably some of the best game-play of any game, ever;
    Breath of the Wild (bottom) is no slug either.

    With foreknowledge of the similarities in game-play and an understanding that they would only ever be able to play one, which of the two do you think the average gamer would select..?

  18. Post
    #18
    SirGrim: Sure. But that's developers caring about gameplay or graphics. I'm asking about gamers.

    gooseman77: So, you're offering a choice between two options that are equal in gameplay but one is better in graphics... obviously the option with extra (IE: in this case, better graphics) will win.

    Do you have a choice between two options, one with great gameplay and bad graphics, and one with great graphics and bad gameplay? That would be a better comparison to what is being discussed.