Topic: How Sony could WIN E3 - IGN.com

There's any number of games that really benefit from high-quality graphics.

I personally know - I own Quantum of Solace both on the Wii and the PS3. Which one do I play more? The PS3 version, because visually, it's a more appealing game. Simple as that.

How they can win: Reveal that the Move is actually a huge practical joke, and Last Guardian comes out tomorrow.

All I'm saying is that great visuals are nice. They're not required to make a game great. Graphics don't make games.But obviously you over looked that and went on a pointless rant about something i already knew... good job?

But you got to remember its a point and click game where you don't really do anything but press a few buttons, pick commands, and watch the game like a movie. For $60.

The funny part is that in 10 years you're going to look back at those games you play for their "incredible graphics" and call them "old crap with graphics", while swooning over the newest visual spectacle.

Sorry, I play games for their gameplay. If I want to see the latest and most amazing visual experience computer graphics can offer, I'll go rent Avatar or something, not Heavy Rain. Then I'll play some Centipede afterwards, because that's a fun game.

Thank you! I'm not the only one.

The funny part is that in 10 years you're going to look back at those games you play for their "incredible graphics" and call them "old crap with graphics", while swooning over the newest visual spectacle.

When was the last time you watched 2001: A Space Odessy, which won the academy award for best visual effects back in the day?

Is it still a great movie? Yes. Would it be acceptable for a current-day movie to have special effects as limited as they were in 2001? No.

The great thing about media arts is they continually evolve and improve, and yes, that evolution is an integal part of the experience. Part of that experience is the "wow" factor that the "blockbuster" can offer. Final Fantasy XIII needed the incredible visuals to have the impact that it did. That's not dismissing the quality of what's come before.

Why is it always the Nintendo fans that set up this "it's one or the other" nonesense. I want a game that is compelling to play, and something that looks amazing, and has a soundtrack I want to buy. 3 console generations from now, I'll want the same thing, but better than what can be done now.

But no, I'm not going to enjoy a game that looks crap. Looking crap doesn't mean limited - Chocobo Dungeon oozes charm and it's sitting on the weak Wii platform, but if a game isn't presented stylishly and professionally, yes it's going to leave a sour taste in my mouth (Gameloft releases, for instance).

We're talking about Nintendo Games not overall visuals for every form of entertainment.
But like I said visuals are nice and are not required. Good graphics help drag you into the game but you don't need those great graphics.

I'll tell you how Sony could win. They could lock down the E3 building, plant hundreds of bombs, and threaten to blow the place straight to hell with everyone inside if they don't declare Sony the winner of E3. And you know what? I believe the people at Sony are crazy enough to do it!

Actually, I don't see anything wrong with hoping the PS3 can become the better looking Wii. Assuming Move works well then at the very least there will be no good reason to buy a Wii FPS ever again.

So in 10 years, Heavy Rain, which is presented realistically and "wowing" rather than stylistically will "look like crap", and you don't want to play it anymore, is that what you're saying? A game's entertainment value is directly connected to the wow factor of it's graphics, and unless they are stylistic enough to be "timeless", they'll be outdated and make the game less fun a couple years after its release?

It's not "one or the other", it's simply a question of "is playing the game fun, or am I just drooling at the graphics, in which case I might as well go watch Avatar, which looks better anyway". Centipede is fun, so I'll stick to playing that, and not giving a crap about how "good" it looks. And it's not a Nintendo game either, so I'm not sure why you're pulling that card.

Oh yeah, and I saw 2001 for the first time two years ago, actually. Great movie, couldn't care less how old it was. Did the effects wow me? No, but that didn't effect my enjoyment of the movie either. I don't watch movies for their modern effects or play games for their truer-to-life-than-last-month's-games graphics. I watch and play them for their qualities as movies and games. Not the qualities of the newest effects of the time.

Not quite sure how you ended up at the assumption that Heavy Rain is a bad game... because it kinda isn't. It's a really neat game, experience, work of interative art, etc etc.

If you can't see how cutting-edge visuals can enhance a visual experience, then it's probably best you stick to centipede.

I haven't played Heavy Rain, I just used it as an example because it was the most recent "awesome visuals making the game" example brought up. I'm not criticizing it, or calling it bad, I'm asking you if you will still like the game in 10 years, when the graphics aren't the newest and most wowing on the market. If you're primarily liking the game for it's visuals, why are you playing games instead of watching computer-animated movies?

First of all, that is not a fact, but an opinion.

Second, graphics are the icing of the cake, so they aren't all that necessary. A crappy game that looks good is STILL CRAPPY!

I haven't played Heavy Rain, I just used it as an example because it was the most recent "awesome visuals making the game" example brought up. I'm not criticizing it, or calling it bad, I'm asking you if you will still like the game in 10 years, when the graphics aren't the newest and most wowing on the market. If you're primarily liking the game for it's visuals, why are you playing games instead of watching computer-animated movies?

I don't know what I'll be playing 10 years from now. I still play FFX, though, which was in a similar position as XIII last console generation. And yes, my main impression of it at the time was how spectacular it looked.

Once again, I'm just objecting to this argument that graphics are completely irrelevant to a good game. Last I checked, the purpose of a game is to be enjoyable. "Enjoyable" is a relative term, but I've never found ugly games enjoyable. I appreciate aesthetics. I don't want a trade off, I want a complete package.

Ergo, graphics are important.

Second, graphics are the icing of the cake, so they aren't all that necessary. A crappy game that looks good is STILL CRAPPY!

I'm struggling really hard here to think of a game that looks crappy that I've found enjoyable to play.

You're not explaining what you mean by "looks crappy", though. Does FFX look crappy? FF7? Doom? Super Mario Bros? Pac-Man? Pong? You're just tossing around words like "ugly" and "spectacular" without explanations. Do spectacular games become ugly over time because some much more spectacular game comes out?

@Adament... the reason I brought up Heavy Rain is because if it wasnt for the quality of the graphics the mood, character, settings, enviroments, major emotions the game is able to pull out of the gamer simply wouldnt work. There has NEVER been a game to my knowlege that can so emotionally tear you apart. If the visuals werent the way they are the game wouldnt be near what it is or be able to achieve what it can. I could write for hours on end, but unless you actually put the disc in on a HD TV and sit and play the game you cant understand it.

I do agree that graphics dont make a game as I stated earlier, but that does depend on the game. With games in their current state in some instances they do as I ALSO previously stated. Racing games and shooter, and I guess you could call it cinematic games do depend on excellent graphic quality to pull off what they are trying to achieve. Play Red Steel and then drop in Borderlands or Modern Warfare 2 and you will see the difference.

As for fun factor, I actually have a blast with Bejeweled on my Android and that no graphic quality to speak of. I still hold to my original point and that is the ones who scream graphic quality all the time and knock down the HD systems are mainly the ones who defend the Wii to death because that is their only system. Its no big deal, the Wii is a great system as well. But you have to have/play them all extensively to see that comparing the Wii to the HD systems is just about like comparing a DVD to a BluRay.

No.

The reason I love the PS3 is, as the technical beast it is, it gives developers additional tools and options in creating nice-looking games. But aesthetics are HD are not mutually-inclusive terms - it's possible for a HD game to fail aesthetically, and it's possible for games from 20 years ago to be aesthetically pleasing.

From an aesthetic perspective, the Wii is more limited than the PS3, but there are plenty of good-looking games on it. I still maintain that aesthetics are critical to games.

Winning E3 involves selling more displayed at E3 (and having said stuff move more systems) than your competitors.

Assuming Move will take center stage at E3, they will have to show a lot more than the buggy Wii Sports Resort HD they showed at GDC to bring the PS3 out of last place. They need to prove that they can provide an experience that Wii does not provide. A AAA FPS title with motion controls, for example, would do that. That would end the "What's better, graphics or controls?" argument once and for all. PS3 would have both. However there are some issues:

• Fanboys who claim dual analog are better controls so Wii sux, may actually believe that and not buy in to Move.
• More casual gamers (if they haven't gotten a game system yet, they're casual), probably won't see the point in spending an extra $200 for PS3 w/ Move over a Wii. PS3 games also cost more. Yes, PS3 has Blu-Ray too, but nobody I know buys movies anymore (even those with PS3's). Netflix is a bigger sell, and Wii has Netflix now too. Yes, PS3 has HD Netflix, but very little is actually in 1080p, so you're not getting THAT much extra for your $. The people on this site that will argue that THEY like blu-ray and buy more expensive blu-rays all the time, are still not yet a representative sample of the entire population.

On the other hand:

• You could see a lot of people trading in their Wii's for PS3's. If PS3 offers a competitive library, both in the Wii Sports/Wii Fit realm and in the "core" game realm, you could see a lot of people trading in Wii's. This would make the initial cost of the PS3 more affordable.
• When your Xbox RRODs right after the warranty expires, it'll probably make more sense to switch to PS3. I'm thinking Move will be better for pretty much any non-party game than Natal (seriously, Natal shooter?). I could imagine a fair amount of Xbots switching consoles. This would be the demographic I'd target heavily, if I was Sony.

At the end of the day, if they have great games, especially with Move, they have the potential to start leeching off the other consoles' user bases. They'll surely release some big name sequels and stuff to keep their existing fanbase faithful, but in order to make the PS3 a game changer, they'll need to do a lot with move.

Id like to see what the move does to make it not look like a big Wiimote copy. Plus, it will be interesting to see both Natal & Move and EyeToy, cause they both are very similar.

Move doing Socom 4 should be enough. Shooters are what most all hardcore crave and if Move gets it perfect, not right but perfect then it will in fact trump the WiiMote.