Wii's first bad move? Created 17 years ago2006-10-12 11:25:46 UTC by Archie

You forgot flowing water, motion blur, soft shadows and OMG VOLUMETRIC CLOUDS!

OMG O WOW That's the most useless features ever. Why can't developers focus on fun gameplay?

Because people like him are still amazed by pretty graphics.

GL 2.0 is an API with (I think) hardware hardcodes just like DX

Indeed, OpenGL is a graphics library. Most of the new cards will also support GL 2.0, if you bother to look at the specs.

OpenGL and DirectX are neck and neck, the major difference is that OpenGL is platform independant, it will work on all OS's that support it, while DirectX is Windows only.

If you do your research, you will find that the new features in both are not much different from each other.

Why can't developers focus on fun gameplay?

Because people like him are still amazed by pretty graphics.

Pretty graphics are what make the game industry move.
If it wasn't for "pretty graphics", there wouldn't be things called PS2 and Gamecube >> Gran Turismo 4 would be another pixellated PSone game and Legend of Zelda: Twilight princess would be an upcoming N64 release.
X360 wouldn't exist because everything "fun" that the X360 can do, would most likely be possible with a normal Xbox.

If you do your research, you will find that the new features in both are not much different from each other.

No points for correctly guessing which'll be more used.

Kasp, i'd be content with playing my 8-bit NES for the rest of my life as long as the games are still fun.

I say if people were less obsessed with how a game looks, there would be far less shitty games out there.

Nintendo is what makes the industry move now (console wise). and that's not because of graphics.

Ehh I have to say I fall over for eye-candy... I love games that look nice and I'de have to say as long as its playable I'de probably enjoy it. The perfect example is HL2 and HL1... HL1 is at the point where I just don't like looking at it, it just seems outdated to me. HL2 (Source in general) is awsome because I sometimes just stop to admire how realistic everything looks. That one CS:S map where its just the house with hostages inside is a perfect example. I just like to run around and look at stuff for a while, and it's even cooler playing on it.

It's late that whole paragraph was just to say that I perfer graphics>gameplay.

I think that video game graphics are at their peak for me at the moment. I dont really care about all this new shit that makes these characters look almost real I just want the graphics we have on PS2/Cube and today's PCs (HL2) joined together with awesome gameplay.

The fact that we dont really NEED this new leap in graphics is one of the main reasons im going to get a Wii.

btw that game is disgusting

Because people like him are still amazed by pretty graphics.

Fuck you.

I was being sarcastic. If I cared about pretty graphics, why the fuck would I be getting a Wii instead of a 360?

I'd never rate graphics higher than gameplay. I mean, I still play lots of old games regularly, StarCraft being the main one. They still entertain me, something new games quite often fail to do for any length of time : .

True, I have found that aswell.

Many new games have all this fancy shit while they can't even make the cut gameplay-wise. Now I am obviously generalising as there are lots of awesome new games (HL2) but I also find my self playing old games constantly as they seem to be more challenging and have the replay value. (Red Alert 1, anyone?)

yeh this anime game sucks

StarCraft and Red Alert didn't have bad graphics when they came out. It's not a question of how it looks now. It's about how it looked back then.
But I agree with a lot of the things that are being said.

A FPS game like HL1 doesn't look the way it does just because of an artistic or aesthetic decision. It looks like that because they didn't have the technology to make it look like HL2. In that sense, HL1 can sometimes feel outdated. It's full of fun gameplay, sure. But the scenery doesn't have the same scale and feel as the sequel. This is not only a graphical thing. Physics also add to the immersion factor, which is essential in FPS games.

I still play a lot of the 16bit Sonic games, or even the N64 "Mario Tennis". In those games, gameplay is more important than looks, because they are not trying to represent the real world (something which FPS tend to try).
Still, I prefer the first 1996 "Tomb Raider" over the new "Tomb Raider: Legend" for gameplay reasons.

And to return to the Wii. Honestly, besides the Internet capability (playing old games etc), I think they could have just made a Wii-mote for the Gamecube and people would be just as happy. After all, graphics are not what Nintendo players are after. It's clear Nintendo wouldn't even try because they need the money. :

davideo59, you PHAIL

Add physics to HL1 and you have HL2. The graphics don't have much weight on anything to me. I see the use of the power to compute large amounts of gameplay components we coudln't have before. Like thousands of enemies in a single scene, or the ability to view a emersive and seamless world. Even physics for that matter.

EDIT: Lets not forget portal... I don't think that game was very pretty, or at least from the splash and trailers. I haven't played it yet... well sortof, they had it going at a circuit city... in an infinite fall... bastards...

HL:HS had physics. Very basic boring physics.

!! GRAFIX > GAMPLAI !! U LoZe HUNTAR

StarCraft and Red Alert didn't have bad graphics when they came out. It's not a question of how it looks now. It's about how it looked back then.
But I agree with a lot of the things that are being said.

I see your point. But when those games came out, the world wasn't totally obsessed with graphics as it is now.

I think it's sort of a vicious circle. A new game comes out, with state of the art graphics. Everyone buys the game to see how it looks. The developer sees this and makes another one, even prettier. More and more focus is put on the visual aspect, while the gameplay suffers.

And here we are, we have sooo many games that look great but lack content. :

Let's not deny the need for graphics - good looking graphics makes the experience more enjoyable for the player, and, most importantly, adds to the immersion of the game. The whole purpose of realistic special effects in games is to add immersion.
But yes, developers emphasize far too much on graphics today. But I'm doing my part, I NEVER buy games with bad gameplay .

I'd also like to point out that Valve are doing (in my opinion) an amazing job on this area - with games like DoD:S, TF2 and (most importantly) Portal, they're proving that graphics doesn't make a game. The source engine is well over 2 years old, but the games feel new and fresh all the same.

Well it was pretty much the same, when Valve released BS and Opfor for HL1. The engine wasn't brand new, although they were still considered as new games, not to mention, that 50% of the overall CS servers are still playing 1.6 nowadays.

The HL1 engine was both a visual and a technical breakthrough. So was the Source engine and I think, that it still is (name at least one engine, that looks that good, has such realistic physics, character animation, etc and doesn't require a powerful computer to run properly.)

I'm pretty sure, that the Source MP mods will be alive for another 10 years, or so.