It's funny to read when my two favourite games of 2011 (Uncharted and Mario) are being thrown against evah other to prove that one is better. I have different ideas of games I want to play. In this case one is a platformer and all the wondeful and crative things you can do with that genre, perfeccting the structure, the highs and all the fu you can have, which Nintendo are masters at. With Uncharted, don't you find it ineresting to see two types of media merge - a third person action game and an action movie. Sometimes when I watch movies I dream that one day in the future I will be seeing the same thing, but I will be in control of it. We're still a long way from that, but the Uncharted series aims to try and put you there, and out of the the current crop of games comes closest. Basically I love both Mario and Uncharted, but for very different kinds of experiences. If I played Mario all day I would get exhausted eventually, but with Uncharted but of you can just sit back and relax and take it all in, the shooting, fighting, climbing and puzzle solving don't take a lot out of you, but they make you feel like you are part of the ride and in some ways trancends the action film as the iteractivity makes you feel more immersed. It's possible to really get into Drake as a character, laugh along with his jokes and have a slight crush on Elena. Okay maybe thats just me
I'm not saying all games are like this, I'm just saying many of them seem to have changed very little. There's not enough innovation, especially with PC games. You guys have been using a mouse and keyboard for over 30 years. Why not try something new? The console industry has evolved and expanded greatly with new types of controllers and gameplay. But PC gamers always seem to stick to the mouse and keyboard, and their endless supply of shooters and RTS games.
I think you're confusing "innovation" with "new control method". If a game is genuinely good, then who cares how you play it?
I don't see how people are saying a console can't just be HD to be improved. We're talking graphics here. Nothing more, nothing less. More features obviously will come to a console with upgraded graphics, it's a no-freaking-brainer. More characters, AI, items and such have to do with the games that come on the console, not the console itself. And improved sound is a whole other department.
I don't see why a lot of people here don't seem to understand that the graphical side of a console is a big one, but it doesn't make up the entire console. We're discussing a topic concerning a certain area of a console, which is graphics - the improved area with prettier visuals. Don't just concentrate on the fact that HD is a big thing to hit most consoles and make it rather prominent, and go whining off on other features that weren't even mentioned in the original discussion in the first place.
Pac-Man (the original arcade version) Tetris Asteroids Donkey Kong (arcade)
All of these games had very crude graphics and sound, but the gameplay made up for it.
...no, those games had great graphics for their time, with art styles that allow them to be endearing even to this day. It astounds me that someone with a Pac-Man avatar can't see the beautiful simplicity in Pac-Man's minimalistic art style and music, which work perfectly with the simplistic gameplay. Which is why I picked an artstyle that doesn't fit Mega Man as my example, even with good gameplay, it wouldn't hold up nearly as well without the graphics, sound and story. Which is really my point here. A chair can stand on one leg (well, not without an extreme amount of balance).
LordTendoboy wrote:
As for Uncharted, Drake himself controls well, and the running is fun. But the aiming is very cumbersome and he climbs so slowly, always pausing for a second before jumping to a ledge. I know they want it to be realistic, but it's a video game, not real life. Video games and movies are supposed to suspend your disbelief, take you away from the boringness of reality. Another reason why I still enjoy cartoons. Seeing a cartoon character blow up from a stick of dynamite or having an anvil crush his body is more fun than if you saw it in real life. It's because you KNOW it's pretend.
Play Half-Life 2 where you practically teleport up ladders and then tell me it doesn't bring you out of the experience. Really, the realism actually helps you get more immersed into Uncharted, which is very important to the overall experience.
As for the aiming, just adjust it in the options menu, or play it a little longer until you're used to it. I thought the aiming was a tad clunky at first, but then I was an expert marksman by chapter 5.
Another thing I'd like to point out. Move is pretty much an exact copy of the Wii Remote, only that it also uses a camera. The types of games on the Wii and Move are extremely similar. Playing an FPS game on the Move is just like playing an FPS on the Wii, except the PS3 version has better graphics. With Move, the PS3 is basically a Wii HD.
At least Microsoft tried something new with Kinect to differentiate itself from the Wii.
Not to mention that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 have the exact same games, with the same types of dual-analog controllers. Why would anyone need both a PS3 and 360 if they both have the same types of games? "Xbox Live is better!" "Sony has more 1st party games!"
Blah blah blah I've heard it all before. The only real difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 is that one plays Blu-Ray, and the other only plays DVD. Xbox 360 has more apps, streaming content, etc., but the games themselves are pretty much the same as on PS3.
its all about the fun playing the game you play thats why i still play "legend of dragoon" from the "ps1" era at least once every year, sure i notice a big leap in comparison when going from todays games back to playing this one and unlike some people the graphics dont bother me at all my eyes dont bleed from downgrade as i hear others say lol
its all about genre for me but we wouldnt have certain ones reach thier highest potiental of gameplay if we was still stuck with the supernintendo or so forth up and till now some of these genre's would not be realised, consider Doom for example that was really pushing it on consoles any higher it wouldnt play the game properly im guessing.
so yeah this whole HD era thing is needed as i understand better hardware leads to better graphics/looks whatever you want to call it, nobody is going to make a console better with powerfull hardware and still stick to the same old ways, thats just not how it works.
if HD era was not important to everybody though some dont give a oreo cookie we would still be in the nes or supernes like era and games would not improve at all
seriously guys just enjoy the style of games we have and kill your doubts with fire
I'm not saying all games are like this, I'm just saying many of them seem to have changed very little. There's not enough innovation, especially with PC games. You guys have been using a mouse and keyboard for over 30 years. Why not try something new? The console industry has evolved and expanded greatly with new types of controllers and gameplay. But PC gamers always seem to stick to the mouse and keyboard, and their endless supply of shooters and RTS games.
I think you're confusing "innovation" with "new control method". If a game is genuinely good, then who cares how you play it?
Controllers can be innovative. Look at the analog stick compared to the D-pad. Would you be satisfied if we were still playing 3D action/adventure games with a D-pad? Look at the Wii Remote compared to analog stick aiming, it's much more intuitive and easier to just point at the screen and aim directly at your target.
Uncharted has awful controls, but I admit I enjoy it because of the story, acting, character interaction, and graphics. But those things are not what makes a video game. They are secondary to the one thing that's important: Gameplay.
No. You do not play a game solely for the gameplay. The enjoyment that emerges from a game is due to a large number of factos, story, acting, interaction, graphics, sound, and gameplay. If you're playing games for enjoyment, but only playing them for gameplay, I'm sorry but you're doing it wrong.
HD is a great feature in games. You cannot tell me you would enjoy a game, today, if the graphics were shocking, sound was unbearable, no story.
And stop with this goal for cinematic realism. I want to play a game, not watch a bunch of cutscenes with bits of gameplay here and there.
Can't believe I have to say this, if you do not enjoy the game, then do not play it. it's obviously easier to complain about the game rather than play something else
QUEEN OF SASS
It's like, I just love a cowboy
You know
I'm just like, I just, I know, it's bad
But I'm just like
Can I just like, hang off the back of your horse
And can you go a little faster?!
Western Developers do seem to stick gameplay in the back seat and put graphics before everything else. It must be utterly boring having to create another Uncharted or Gears of War, because they're doing 'nothing' innovative with the controls/gameplay,
Would it be any different than those working on Mario Kart 7? Its big thing is 3D graphics. Isn't 3D graphics also one of your "now that I've tried... I can't go back to..." things? Graphics aren't important or innovative unless Nintendo is focusing on them?
Also, why can innovation only come through controls?
Another thing I'd like to point out. Move is pretty much an exact copy of the Wii Remote, only that it also uses a camera. The types of games on the Wii and Move are extremely similar. Playing an FPS game on the Move is just like playing an FPS on the Wii, except the PS3 version has better graphics. With Move, the PS3 is basically a Wii HD.
At least Microsoft tried something new with Kinect to differentiate itself from the Wii.
Not to mention that both the PS3 and Xbox 360 have the exact same games, with the same types of dual-analog controllers. Why would anyone need both a PS3 and 360 if they both have the same types of games? "Xbox Live is better!" "Sony has more 1st party games!"
Blah blah blah I've heard it all before. The only real difference between the Xbox 360 and PS3 is that one plays Blu-Ray, and the other only plays DVD. Xbox 360 has more apps, streaming content, etc., but the games themselves are pretty much the same as on PS3.
the only reason anyone would have both the 360 and a ps3 is the exclusives actually thats my reason too
i stop getting dvd movies and replaced them with blu-ray copies and started from there they look hell of alot better in comparison even on a SD tv with the blu-ray movies
dvds scratch really easly compared to blu-ray disks youd have to force the scratch on purpose so thats another reason i favor blu-rays even though im extremely carefull with my other games that arent blu-rays
I am glad that Nintendo is finally catching up to Sony and Microsoft's graphics standards, but they are ALSO bringing something new-ish. The tablet controller offers much more than just a simple dual-analog controller. It's another window to new gameplay ideas (no pun intended). Motion controls, a screen, microphone, buttons, analog pads, HD graphics... it's like the Wii U controller is the ultimate culmination of Nintendo's 30-year gaming history.
Except the Wii U controller has one major downfall where the Wii remote plus has the upper hand in and that's using the Wii remote like a gun, Link's Sword for example, a tennis racket, a mallet, a baseball bat and many other smaller compact things which are also ment to be used with one hand. You can't use the Wii U controller as those things above... if anything it would make a great shield. LOL Or maybe a sweet virtual table to eat on while picking Metroid sushi from the touch screen.
It's a controller that takes a step back backwards and a step forward. In no way would i use that thing for the next Zelda or Metroid Prime 4....I want Skyward Sword controls with the Wii remote + Nunchuck and more, not to go back to traditional controls for either game...Even IF the touch screen elemets are totaly awesome, along with the gyro controls. Sure there can be some pointer functionality thrown in, but it would most likely be sparse.....Alternate controls aka Wii Remote Plus + Nunchuck will be a must for anything 3rd or first person for me.
The Wii remote is a better pointer controller because it replicates far more things than what the 'two handed' squarey' and large Wii U controller can and will do.
You can still use the Wii Remote you know. Nintendo will still make Wii U games that use it.
Look at the "Battle Mii" tech demo: [youtube:49-ihEkfrXc] [youtube:ltrLlzMWHBM]
The players on the ground use the Wii Remote to aim and shoot, and the player with the Wii U tablet has an overhead view of the map and can shoot the players on the ground.
Innovation means improvement. Just because a control method is new doesn't mean it's an improvement.
Bah! innovation is just change. The Wii and Wii U controls are innovative because they're differant from the norm. whether the Wii U is an improvement or not it's yet to be seen but I doubt anybody would deny that it's innovative.
"I never swear, my lord, I say yes or no; and, as I am a gentleman, I keep my word." - D'artagnan in Twenty Years After
@Usagi-san: So, motion controls is innovation, yet isn't improvement? Tablet controllers on a console is innovation, yet not improvement? From a technological point of view, I do beg to differ.
Innovation means improvement. Just because a control method is new doesn't mean it's an improvement.
Bah! innovation is just change. The Wii and Wii U controls are innovative because they're differant from the norm. whether the Wii U is an improvement or not it's yet to be seen but I doubt anybody would deny that it's innovative.
True. Innovation is when something new is made or done. Improvement is when an existing product is made better and/or more efficient. Wii= Innovation X360/PS3= Improvement
I think you're confusing "innovation" with "new control method". If a game is genuinely good, then who cares how you play it?
Controllers can be innovative.
I never said they couldn't be. You're assuming that's the only thing that can be innovative.
Look at the Wii Remote compared to analog stick aiming, it's much more intuitive and easier to just point at the screen and aim directly at your target.
Yes, for some people (including myself), but that doesn't determine weather the game is good or bad.
The primary focus is the game, and gameplay is just how you interact with it.
Forums
Topic: This whole HD era confuses me.
Posts 41 to 60 of 158
This topic has been archived, no further posts can be added.