@CanisWolfred
How is it getting harder to use the technology? It's getting easier everyday. Fifteen years ago you would have needed a huge team to make a AAA title, now with game engines such as Unity you can create an amazing game with like 2 dudes in a room.
You gotta be kidding me. 15 years ago, teams were rarely bigger than 20 people. Nowadays, most major games have 50 people at least working on it, if not over 100. I don't know if you've ever sat through the credits of a game before (doubtful considering the bullcrap you just spouted), but I recently sat through the extended credits of Banjo-Kazooie, a major 3D game for its time with huge, intricate levels. Even with the addition of the added credits for the XBLA version, and listing people 2 at a time, it was over in only about 3 and half minutes.
One of the games I beat before that was Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction, a major AAA game that came out in 2008 with large, intricate levels. It had a text scroll that lasted well over 6 minutes, and I'm pretty sure they went through two or 3 credit songs.
And that was in 2008. I'll bet my house its only gotten worse in games like Battlefield 4 and Assassin's Creed IV on the PS4.
Most developers I know of have near 200 employees to make AAA titles. Personally I think it is a little over kill. For Halo 2, Bingie had around 50 people. I think that is a good number to make a solid game with a reasonable budget. It may not be the best looking graphics but they can stylized enough to standout
People keep saying the Xbox One doesn't have Backwards Compatibility.
I don't think they know what Backwards Compatibility means...
3DS Friend Code: 2621-2786-9784 | Nintendo Network ID: DefHalan
Fifteen years ago you would have needed a huge team to make a AAA title, now with game engines such as Unity you can create an amazing game with like 2 dudes in a room.
Are you posting from an alternative timeline? Because that's BS here.
@gage_wolf You are starting to spout some high level nonsense.
Fifteen years ago you would have needed a huge team to make a AAA title, now with game engines such as Unity you can create an amazing game with like 2 dudes in a room
I will give him that a small, talented team can make a game with great graphics. However, I'm talking about pushing the system to its limits. The Perfect Darks of yesteryear are not on the same level as the Killzones of today and the Titanfalls of Tomorrow.
You're making two different points and confusing the two as the same.
Games are getting easier to make. Period. This has nothing to do with games getting BIGGER in scale. Those are two different things. Calling out a bunch of mega studios for having 200 people on staff is just illustrating how huge the scale of games have become, but has nothing to do with the difficulty in making a great looking game. Why do you think indie games are so prevalent? Because the tools to make games has become so much more approachable.
I will give him that a small, talented team can make a game with great graphics. However, I'm talking about pushing the system to its limits. The Perfect Darks of yesteryear are not on the same level as the Killzones of today and the Titanfalls of Tomorrow.
He is talking about triple A games that are mostly vast in scale like GTA 5, AC 4, X, SM3DW etc.
You're making two different points and confusing the two as the same.
Games are getting easier to make. Period. This has nothing to do with games getting BIGGER in scale. Those are two different things. Calling out a bunch of mega studios for having 200 people on staff is just illustrating how huge the scale of games have become, but has nothing to do with the difficulty in making a great looking game. Why do you think indie games are so prevalent? Because the tools to make games has become so much more approachable.
Your previous comment referred to triple A games not indies be more with your comments as they're coming across as wishy washy.
I will give him that a small, talented team can make a game with great graphics. However, I'm talking about pushing the system to its limits. The Perfect Darks of yesteryear are not on the same level as the Killzones of today and the Titanfalls of Tomorrow.
He is talking about triple A games that are mostly vast in scale like GTA 5, AC 4, X, SM3DW etc.
You're making two different points and confusing the two as the same.
Games are getting easier to make. Period. This has nothing to do with games getting BIGGER in scale. Those are two different things. Calling out a bunch of mega studios for having 200 people on staff is just illustrating how huge the scale of games have become, but has nothing to do with the difficulty in making a great looking game. Why do you think indie games are so prevalent? Because the tools to make games has become so much more approachable.
Your previous comment referred to triple A games not indies be more with your comments as they're coming across as wishy washy.
Here's the Wikipedia definition of AAA:
"An AAA title is intended to demonstrate the very best within a gaming company or franchising.[8] Examples of such games are: Super Mario Galaxy, Assassin's Creed, Halo, Uncharted, Mass Effect, Fallout: New Vegas, Angry Birds, GTA V, and Fez. "
Take note of Angry Birds and Fez on that list of examples.
@gage_wolf Well this is how most people define a triple A game:
Definition:
A AAA game, or pronounced "triple-A game", is generally a title developed by a large studio, funded by a massive budget.
These games will have a marketing budget in the multiple-millions of dollars, and are planned to earn out in excess of one million titles sold. Investors/publishers expect a multiple-of-cost return on their investment. In order to recoup general development costs, publishers will generally produce the title for the major platforms (currently Xbox 360, PS3, and PC) to maximize profits, unless it is a console exclusive, in which case the console maker will pay for exclusivity to offset the loss of potential profit to the developer.
@gage_wolf So AAA is anything that is a high profile game from any platform regardless of money spent on making a game not from a physical disc on a console or PC that is made consisting of hundred-thousands to millions of dollars?
@gage_wolf So AAA is anything that is a high profile game from any platform not from a physical disc on a console or PC?
I don't think physical discs are a factor here, as most games are available digitally anyways.
@Jazzer94
The notion that only big budget games are "big" titles seems a bit out-dated. Look at games like Octodad. This was made by a group of college kids, and yet it became a major component of the PS4's launch library and had just as much show floor presence as the mega-funded titles.
@gage_wolf So AAA is anything that is a high profile game from any platform not from a physical disc on a console or PC?
I don't think physical discs are a factor here, as most games are available digitally anyways.
@Jazzer94
The notion that only big budget games are big titles seems a bit out-dated. Look at games like Octodad. This was made by a group of college kids, and yet it became a major component of the PS4's launch library and had just as much show floor presence as the mega titles.
Youre right, (most) games. Nethertheless. You're avoiding my question. What is the definition of triple AAA?
Mmm, nope. I meant fifteen years. The majority of the games I see are 2D platformers and ugly puzzle games, which we already got plenty of in the mid to late 90s
You do realise that 15 years ago there were also quite a few revolutionary shooters (UT, Quake 3) as well as the last GTA before the new idea of what GTA is. Then there were big JRPGs, Pokemon was taking the world by storm and Smash Bros was a brand new thing. Some games were even starting to play around with the idea of quicktime events. If anything 15 years ago the 2D platforming genre had faded into obscurity and the gaming world was full of basically everything that exists now but 2D platformers.
So in a nutshell the Nintendo of 15 years ago was doing this:
and the Nintendo of now is doing this:
and you think this is the same?............ I can't say I agree with you. Other than maybe Nintendo haven't fallen into the "low difficulty" trap as much as some others have. Is it the difficulty of some of these games that's "old"? If that's the case then good on them
My point was not to really dissect exactly how old the "new" games for Wii U look, but instead just illustrate that there's not much coming out that looks impressive by today's terms (Nintendo being the exception). I'm not a graphics junkie, but my phone's games are looking better than the majority of titles coming to Wii U. Blok Drop U anyone? Shovel Knight looks pretty cool, but again... had enough 2d platformers! Nintendo cheaped-out on the hardware and now we're paying the price with pretty much no third party support. Da truth.
Unfortunately this is pretty true.
http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/2sang/nintendo-pizza-scented-air-freshener-mach-pizza-ea
BACK MY PROJECT EVEN $1 HELPS!
To be fair, the entire discussion is a stupid graphics are important discussion. Which is stupid as the only gaming systems anyone likes anymore are the 3DS and the now "outdated" PS3.
<implying this matters in a post-Minecraft age
and yes I've heard every rebuttle to this, so don't try, you know what I actually mean
@skywake
Hmm, I think the movie metaphor may actually be a good way to look at this. I have no problem watching black and white films, films on VHS, and even on the rare occasion I can enjoy a silent film. But for the most part I find myself watching films that are in color and hopefully in HD. This preference isn't due to my hatred for all things old, nor is it because I'm obsessed with 1080p-everything! It's just progress. People consider Citizen Kane to be one of the greatest movies of all time, but that doesn't mean we should just stop and go..."You know what that movie was the best so let's just make and watch movies like that. Let's make them all black & white. Let's dress everyone up in clothes of that era, film the movie to look old and dated, and even score the film to sound like it's 1941 all over again." That sounds terribly boring.
That wasn't my point. I was actually saying that just because a genre or style has been done doesn't mean that it should be abandoned and never touched again. Retro gaming has its place in modern gaming just as much as psychedelic music or film noir does. Just because, for example, Tame Impala doesn't have a "modern" sound doesn't mean that they're not interesting. Frankly I'd get bored if gaming was nothing more than shooters and sandboxes just as much as I would get bored of music if everything was hip-hop and electronica.
I also believe I made a point of saying that first person shooters, sandbox games and quicktime events aren't that much newer than puzzlers and platformers. They all existed 15 years ago that's for sure. There really isn't any single style of game that exists now that isn't less than 10-15 years old that I can think of.
You claim: "When devs can get the look they want at 1080p with 60fps constant, there ain't much left."
So you're saying welp we've reached 1080p at 60 fps, so let's just throw in the towel and start moving backwards? That's just sad.
I think you're drawing hasty conclusions.
Skywake has a point. We're reaching a graphical fidelity wall because Moore's law and the law of dimmishing returns are a more noticeable reality right now. Graphical jumps from 7th to 8th gen consoles range are a far cry from the jumps from 5th to 6th ones. The search for mind-blowing graphics will be futile one day and we will only see small improvements through the course of the years.
Yes. The way I see it game development is like a collaborative (often) piece of art (hopefully). The hardware is just the canvas and removing the limits just gives them a large canvas, cooler brushes and more colours. At the end of the day it's the images, sounds, music, story and mechanics of the game that make it great not the hardware. The hardware can get in the way of that but increasingly it's less and less of an issue. There was the shift from static screens to scrolling screens and then a period refinement, then a shift from 2D to 3D and then again continued refinement. Now we're just in a state of perpetual refinement of the same things.
Does that mean hardware should stop now? No, not at all. Does it mean that "even" the Wii U can physically do any style of game? Yes, yes it can. The hardware isn't limiting it. If a dev wants to push a style that doesn't need heaps of power and they can do that style of game on Wii U with 60fps, 1080p then what more do they need? Plenty of those sort of games exist and they aren't all "boring". That was my point.
Forums
Topic: I finally understand.
Posts 101 to 120 of 123
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.