And judging by the huge success of the DS and the ever growing domination of the Wii, super high tech graphics are on their way out. The age where hardware manufacturers and video game developers engaged in polygon dick-waving contests is over.
Haha what. The graphics wars are nowhere near over. True, I can see graphical improvements gradually becoming less important in the future, as the power of game systems approaches the natural limits of the human eye and how big a TV screen the average person can afford/will tolerate. But that's still a long way off.
So before I add in my thoughts I'll just post what I think is Defender's position.
1 ) A Gesture based system is inferior to a button system
2 ) The Wii (Generally) can not have good competitive games
3 ) Competitive games are the foundation for great games
4 ) Casual players enjoy medicracy
So with that, can I conclude the following?
Defender's ideal single player game would have the player push a single button and have them win the game. Less user input (or possible error) the better.
In a multiplayer (competitive) game, players should beable to perform what they want on will, there interface is second nature.
Defender's gaming style is play to win (competitive) and your more interested in the result and not neccessarily the journey. beating a level is important, not the steps it took to accomplish the feat.
LCDs and Plasma TV's are terrible (for games) because they have an inherit delay (theres no relavnce to this remark but I'd say its a safe bet)
****
I will first say a gesture system is not inferior to a button system, it solely depends on the type of game you are trying to create. What makes gesture's wonderful is that users do NOT have to be "good" at the action they are mimicking, they just have to be good enough.
A good example would be Wii sports where the player is gesturing a simple action and gets outcomes like a perfect golf swing or tennis serve. 1:1 would require either the players to be very good or the games to be ridicously simple. For example take guitar hero as an example. It really is a Gesture System when compare it to a real guitar. If you want me to further expand on this comment I'll do it later, but I hope you can understand the benfits of gesture vs 1:1
Gesture vs button is again, game dependent. Remember, one of the motif's about the Wii was that games (and controllers) were getting too complex (too many buttons) the reason this occured is that games had more and more actions. You either need buttons (bad) or complex input (ala SF - bad) using the standard paradiam. Gestures systems allow for a near limitless, simple to remember and understand control options.
However (like complex input) is more prone to user error. At this stage Gesture controls can be equated to an input sequance with buttons.
Gesture recognition can also be very very fast or very slow based on how the developer chooses to do it. I know a bit about Wii development (well motion sensing to be specific) so hear me out.
First off the Wii remote is basically three accelerometers that give you X,Y,Z readings in real time. It is up to the developer to take that data and do what they will with it. Yes there is some middle ware to help with gesture recongition but developers can have full control is they so desire. The speed of recongition is based on the number of possible gestures in any given moment. The more possible gestures the more time it'll take for the game to recongize the action (needs to ensure theres a 90% match for gesture before taking action). However this can be in the order of milliseconds, it depends on the speed of the input (big movement vs small movement) the Wii technically cant tell the difference.
Games do not have to be competitive to be good. Some of the best games are not competitive, like SimCity, Zelda and Mario. This is a matter of taste and there are many top selling and critcally acclaimed games that are not competitive.
Casual gamers will buy what ever the good games are. Yes they'll sometimes buy whats "crap" but those games still sell like crap in the end. Only the great games that appeal to the largest market will truely sell well. The next great game to appeal to the largest market will be next big seller, this is one reason why all Blizzard games sell so well. They appeal to the largest market from the casual and unskilled to the hardcore and pro players. Nintendo games also do that for a majority of there franchise titles and there sales reflect that also.
To Defender:
Just because (many) people do not see gaming in the (serious) manner that you do does not make it wrong in anyway. You can spew as much technical jargon as you want but gaming is an art not a sceience.
Why did I spend the time to make a wall of text I dont know... maybe its cause I cant sleep
So with that, can I conclude the following?
Defender's ideal single player game would have the player push a single button and have them win the game. Less user input (or possible error) the better.
In a multiplayer (competitive) game, players should beable to perform what they want on will, there interface is second nature.
Defender's gaming style is play to win (competitive) and your more interested in the result and not neccessarily the journey. beating a level is important, not the steps it took to accomplish the feat.
So with that, can I conclude the following?
Defender's ideal single player game would have the player push a single button and have them win the game. Less user input (or possible error) the better.
In a multiplayer (competitive) game, players should beable to perform what they want on will, there interface is second nature.
Defender's gaming style is play to win (competitive) and your more interested in the result and not neccessarily the journey. beating a level is important, not the steps it took to accomplish the feat.
That is NOT what defender is saying. goddamn.
Then WTF is he saying? I must've lost the point after getting crit by the billions of text ( I was bored enough to read)
Perhaps the multiplayer one, but most definitely not the single player.
I'm fine with misstating his points to make fun of him but seriously.
That's a little much.
Well I put it to the extreme end.
On one end you have little to no input vs 1:1 realistic simulation. Of course we'll say the best is a balance of the two but where does that lie exactly?
I feel the Wii lies closer to the middle since its a combination of buttons and motion (gestures) then simple tap tap of previous controllers.
Defender thinks that to be a good game it must not simply be a fun experience. He wants the game to rape him and his future children until he beats it back with his gamepad.
Defender thinks that to be a good game it must not simply be a fun experience. He wants the game to rape him and his future children until he beats it back with his gamepad.
I may be using hyperbole here.
I was looking at it from a controller standpoint then from an actual game design one when I made that statement since you could have that on the Wii (I'm looking at you DBZ on hard) or any other system.
So before I add in my thoughts I'll just post what I think is Defender's position.
1 ) A Gesture based system is inferior to a button system
2 ) The Wii (Generally) can not have good competitive games
3 ) Competitive games are the foundation for great games
4 ) Casual players enjoy medicracy
So with that, can I conclude the following?
Defender's ideal single player game would have the player push a single button and have them win the game. Less user input (or possible error) the better.
In a multiplayer (competitive) game, players should beable to perform what they want on will, there interface is second nature.
Defender's gaming style is play to win (competitive) and your more interested in the result and not neccessarily the journey. beating a level is important, not the steps it took to accomplish the feat.
LCDs and Plasma TV's are terrible (for games) because they have an inherit delay (theres no relavnce to this remark but I'd say its a safe bet)
****
I will first say a gesture system is not inferior to a button system, it solely depends on the type of game you are trying to create. What makes gesture's wonderful is that users do NOT have to be "good" at the action they are mimicking, they just have to be good enough.
A good example would be Wii sports where the player is gesturing a simple action and gets outcomes like a perfect golf swing or tennis serve. 1:1 would require either the players to be very good or the games to be ridicously simple. For example take guitar hero as an example. It really is a Gesture System when compare it to a real guitar. If you want me to further expand on this comment I'll do it later, but I hope you can understand the benfits of gesture vs 1:1
Gesture vs button is again, game dependent. Remember, one of the motif's about the Wii was that games (and controllers) were getting too complex (too many buttons) the reason this occured is that games had more and more actions. You either need buttons (bad) or complex input (ala SF - bad) using the standard paradiam. Gestures systems allow for a near limitless, simple to remember and understand control options.
However (like complex input) is more prone to user error. At this stage Gesture controls can be equated to an input sequance with buttons.
Gesture recognition can also be very very fast or very slow based on how the developer chooses to do it. I know a bit about Wii development (well motion sensing to be specific) so hear me out.
First off the Wii remote is basically three accelerometers that give you X,Y,Z readings in real time. It is up to the developer to take that data and do what they will with it. Yes there is some middle ware to help with gesture recongition but developers can have full control is they so desire. The speed of recongition is based on the number of possible gestures in any given moment. The more possible gestures the more time it'll take for the game to recongize the action (needs to ensure theres a 90% match for gesture before taking action). However this can be in the order of milliseconds, it depends on the speed of the input (big movement vs small movement) the Wii technically cant tell the difference.
Games do not have to be competitive to be good. Some of the best games are not competitive, like SimCity, Zelda and Mario. This is a matter of taste and there are many top selling and critcally acclaimed games that are not competitive.
Casual gamers will buy what ever the good games are. Yes they'll sometimes buy whats "crap" but those games still sell like crap in the end. Only the great games that appeal to the largest market will truely sell well. The next great game to appeal to the largest market will be next big seller, this is one reason why all Blizzard games sell so well. They appeal to the largest market from the casual and unskilled to the hardcore and pro players. Nintendo games also do that for a majority of there franchise titles and there sales reflect that also.
To Defender:
Just because (many) people do not see gaming in the (serious) manner that you do does not make it wrong in anyway. You can spew as much technical jargon as you want but gaming is an art not a sceience.
Why did I spend the time to make a wall of text I dont know... maybe its cause I cant sleep
you automatically lose for writing such a long response to defender being defender for the sake of being defender
The controls become a bottleneck because gesture-recognition systems are inherently slower and less accurate than button-pushing systems for discrete commands. Therefore, as players get better, their skill will exceed the speed of the input scheme. At that point, the input scheme acts as a bottleneck to raising their game. This is different from games like Soul Calibur where the controls are very simple and the gameplay is very complex/deep, because by the time you reach the deeper levels of gameplay complexity, you've long since mastered the control interface. After maybe, like, an hour of play (at most), the control scheme is so fast and smooth that you pretty much never have to think about it. Contrast this to Street Fighter, where even skilled players (not, like, tournament-level, but still skilled) sometimes have trouble pulling off some of the supers.
Stop thinking of past games you retard.
They were designed with button presses in mind.
A game with motion controls in mind when it was desgined would play differently.
Except I already named 1:1 swordfighting, which isn't something I've seen in a fighting game except maybe if you count Die By The Sword. You retard.
That's a HIGHLY dubious statement. You do not know what the API looks like, and I have a feeling you're not even a programmer. The API may very well have built-in recognition for certain gesture types, and it may be impractically hard, perhaps due to software processing time outside of the machine's internal processing, to make the right API calls to sense and interpret gestures without using the built-in recognition scheme. That kind of statement is not one that you should make without knowing something about the API or at least having a reasonable guess. You don't know what you don't know on this topic.
Homebrew types have cracked the Wii remote's encryption. The drivers to view the data are publicly available.
Here's a wiki about Wii homebrew with an article detailing the remote.
Good, except that this "API information" is just the most obvious, bare-bones shit that the Wii would obviously need just to function. In fact, this doesn't even say what the API is or whether or not the built-in gesture-recognition system I suggested even exists. This just talks about the raw dataflow to and from the Wiimote, which is not necessarily all that the developer sees. In short, you just gave me "what the device does" and neglected to consider that there are layers like "OS" and "engine" that can/must lie between the game and the device.
But again, I doubt you're even a programmer, so you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, and even if this document WERE a list of exactly what the developer API exposes, it still doesn't explain whether or not complex recognition schemes would run in respectable amounts of time on the CPU while also running a game. So in short, there's a huge amount of really key information that you're missing.
I'll say it again: You don't know what you don't know. I'm a fucking professional in the field and I admit that I don't know exactly what's what here; why are you, someone who doesn't even sound like a programmer, making assertions about the API when you can't even tell the difference between a device's raw I/O data and an API?
Every time you think that, it's because you're retarded. Make that your mantra.
You should take your own advice Defender.
I suggest pulling your face out of your rectum first.
Yeah, I'll "pull my head out of my ass" by putting up a bunch of I/O flags and calling it an API, thereby demonstrating that I don't know anything at all. I mean, I would do that, but you've beaten me to it and I don't want to look like I'm just mirroring you.
All art and science builds on the past. The difference between games like GOW and Zelda:TP is that GOW ups the scale and complexity and refines the balance and adds layers of depth to gameplay, whereas TP dumbs the game down so badly that it's hard to die, effective regressing by removing the challenge and thus eliminating depth from play.
Defender.
Shut up about Zelda. I'm serious. Shut up. The depth in Zelda is not in the combat it's in the exploration of the world. But if you're so obsessed with judging depth by how often you see the game over screen then fine, I'll prove you wrong in that count.
Oh my fucking god that's not even close to what I said. Did you even read, or did you just decide to say something stupid without making it relevant?
First off, there's no "depth" in world exploration. I think you don't even know what "gameplay depth" means. Gameplay depth refers to levels of skill where players discover that some new or different player skill can be improved to make them more effective at the game. For example, in Soul Calibur, the base depth layer is just button-mashing. That's where new players come in. The next layer down is when a player learns to guard and then counter-attack. After that, players start learning to use "throw" and "low" attacks to get around the other guy's guard. Once the players learn to guard low (which ducks under throw attacks), they start learning how to switch up "low", "throw", and "mid" attacks to confuse the other guy and break through his guard. These are just the first few levels, but at each level of depth, the game becomes about something new. At first, it's just a dumb mashing game. Some players never get past that depth level; they just pick Maxi and mash away. After that, the game starts to be about guarding and using retaliatory combos. That quickly devolves into everybody just standing around and holding guard, at which point some players will think "I've discovered all there is to know about this game" and will not progress. Other players, though, will discover the next level, which is "stuff that hits through normal guard." As they explore this level, they'll start to recognize when they need to duck or guard low to avoid leg strikes or high grabs.
These are depth layers. At each layer, the core gameplay appears to revolve around something else. You are technically playing the same game, but your focus is on something that you didn't even realize was there before.
With that in mind, please explain to me how TP has "depth" in its exploration of the world.
<What about just deliberately ignoring in-game powerups? I think that purposely keeping your character weak is the same as difficulty settings.>
So basically, we have three games. God of War, Kingdom Hearts II, and Zelda: Twilight Princess. All three of these games have different difficulty levels. God of War has a direct choice. At the beginning of the game you choose your level. You chose the higher difficulty level knowing that it means the game will be harder. The other two, however, are more integrated into the gameplay. You have to choose to not perform actions that make the game easier knowing that it'll make the game harder.
Pata, choosing a difficulty setting is simply choosing a version of the game you wish to play. Choosing to play with purposely bad strategy to make the game artificially harder is totally different. There are two big differences:
1) In games where you pick the difficulty setting, you are making a selection of what game you want to play and then playing it. You are essentially playing a different but extremely similar game. This game is a legitimate version of the main game, and it was created by the developer.
2) After you pick a difficulty level, you're not in control of that. When you choose to play through a game in some weird style, you're able to go back on that decision at any time, plus the balance for that "mode" is not set out by the game developers. The TP and KH2 "I will just deprive my character of power" options are not "integrated into the gameplay" at all because the developers did not create and balance-adjust that. You did! God of War, on the other hand, IS integrated into the gameplay because the developers put it in there and were therefore able to test it and balance-adjust it and make it work the way they wanted it to.
I'm sorry, but "awesome graphics mean nothing" simply means that you don't know what the fuck you're talking about. Graphics are a tool that can be used to tell stories or evoke emotions. Better graphics are better tools for the job. That's exactly the kind of stupid bullshit that people in the industry recognize as nonsense.
You know what? If graphics mean nothing, please explain id Software's continued success. Please explain why anyone would license the Unreal 3 engine instead of Unreal 2. Please explain why Blizzard made Warcraft III a 3D game instead of 2D. You don't know what the fuck you're talking about because you have no experience as a developer. And here's a pretty famous and accomplished game designer who disagrees with you.
So please, seriously, shut up. You are talking out your ass. Once again, to remind you, when you think I'm talking out of my ass, look closely; it's pretty much always you who is wrong. Seriously, CliffyB actually specifically said that "awesome graphics mean nothing" is stupid bullshit at the last GDC. Look around online, you can find his speech and hear a veteran game developer say it right to you.
Graphics mean nothing because the people have declared they mean nothing.
If graphics mean nothing, then why does John Carmack have so much money? If graphics mean nothing, then why do people bother building hardware like video cards? Who's buying those $600 video cards? Who's buying those next-gen consoles? Why do they keep coming up with new versions of OpenGL and DirectX? Why does time and money keep getting invested in improving something that "doesn't matter"? It's been a LONG TIME of people producing better and better graphics through software and hardware...why?
Also, this isn't the first time that people have said "wow, these graphics are the best that there will ever need to be." I've heard that statement time after time and they always get better. We're not at "holodeck" level graphics yet; we're gonna keep on moving up.
In short, people clearly haven't declared that they mean nothing, because they keep buying them. Also, if you just want to say "well, people SAID that they don't care about graphics," well, yeah, they've said that a thousand times, but somehow the economy keeps supporting better graphics hardware and software. Just like how if you say you don't care what a girl looks like, but you only ever ask out the hot girls...guess what? Say it all you want, that doesn't mean it's true.
Why the hell do I have to analyze why I like a game? I just likes it is all
Like Shorty just said, it's pretty stupid not to make an effort to understand why you think or feel the way you do in ANY area of life. You are spending time and money on these things, it might be cool to know why. Uuuuugggh I need to give reasons.
1) You will be able to find games that match your desires by understanding exactly what it is you like instead of just buying games based on the box art and marketing hype.
2) You will be able to find deeper enjoyment by discovering layers of subtlety that would've been invisible to you beforehand. You know how some people can tell really good wine or beer or steak from crappy wine/beer/steak? Appreciation leads to greater enjoyment.
So before I add in my thoughts I'll just post what I think is Defender's position.
1 ) A Gesture based system is inferior to a button system
2 ) The Wii (Generally) can not have good competitive games
3 ) Competitive games are the foundation for great games
4 ) Casual players enjoy medicracy
So with that, can I conclude the following?
Defender's ideal single player game would have the player push a single button and have them win the game. Less user input (or possible error) the better.
In a multiplayer (competitive) game, players should beable to perform what they want on will, there interface is second nature.
Defender's gaming style is play to win (competitive) and your more interested in the result and not neccessarily the journey. beating a level is important, not the steps it took to accomplish the feat.
I'm snipping you here because you are so totally wrong.
First off, my favorite games are multiplayer cooperative. Now, that does often take the form of, say, Warcraft Arranged Team matches, so it can also be considered competitive, but I also like "single-player" style games like DOOM or Gears or Tenchu 3 where they just let you have other players with you.
Secondly, a game where you push a button and win is exactly what I don't like. I have made it clear to most people (apparently not you) that I like DEPTH. I like layers upon layers of skill. An "I Win" button is a zero-skill (and thus zero-depth) game, so that's the worst possible game for me.
Play-to-win is not in any way mutually exclusive with play-for-fun. Play-to-win reveals the quality of the game by unravelling layers of depth as players get better. It adds to replay value or longevity because it's almost like discovering a new game within the old game. Not discovering these layers can make a game seem stale or used-up before it should.
2) After you pick a difficulty level, you're not in control of that. When you choose to play through a game in some weird style, you're able to go back on that decision at any time, plus the balance for that "mode" is not set out by the game developers. The TP and KH2 "I will just deprive my character of power" options are not "integrated into the gameplay" at all because the developers did not create and balance-adjust that. You did! God of War, on the other hand, IS integrated into the gameplay because the developers put it in there and were therefore able to test it and balance-adjust it and make it work the way they wanted it to.
Again. If they hadn't wanted that to be an option they would have made them required.
And you can always go back and pick an easier difficulty level. Just because you have to go back and click "new game" dosn't mean you can't.
Again. If they give you the option, it's a "difficulty level" even if they don't say it directly.
If graphics mean nothing, then why does John Carmack have so much money? If graphics mean nothing, then why do people bother building hardware like video cards? Who's buying those $600 video cards? Who's buying those next-gen consoles? Why do they keep coming up with new versions of OpenGL and DirectX? Why does time and money keep getting invested in improving something that "doesn't matter"? It's been a LONG TIME of people producing better and better graphics through software and hardware...why?
Hardcore gamers are buying 600$ video cards. Hardcore gamers may be the loudest but they are far from the largest.
Essentially game makers are in polygon dick waving contests, in which in order to enjoy the game you need to but that expensive video card and then later having to but a new one.
And people wonder why big, flashy, PC gaming isn't happening much anymore.
And last I checked, the "next-gen console" (and anyone who uses that term to describe any system that's out is a toolbox) that most people are buying is the Wii.
Also, this isn't the first time that people have said "wow, these graphics are the best that there will ever need to be." I've heard that statement time after time and they always get better. We're not at "holodeck" level graphics yet; we're gonna keep on moving up.
That's fine.
That doesn't mean people are going to pay for the shiny graphics. Most people don't want to pay that much.
You seem to think that just because they can make a console that powerful they must. Why should they when all it does is cause them to bleed money and make gaming ever more expensive?
Oh. Right. Because you can't bear to think that the dreaded "mainstream" liking the same things you do. The only people who should play games are those who earn them darn it!
In short, people clearly haven't declared that they mean nothing, because they keep buying them. Also, if you just want to say "well, people SAID that they don't care about graphics," well, yeah, they've said that a thousand times, but somehow the economy keeps supporting better graphics hardware and software. Just like how if you say you don't care what a girl looks like, but you only ever ask out the hot girls...guess what? Say it all you want, that doesn't mean it's true.
The market isn't going to support the expensive hardware jump that the 360 and PS3 represent.
Both of them are going to be niche, only bought by the hardcore. And guess what. Super Shiny graphics are expensive, and are getting more expensive faster then the number of hardcore gamers is growing.
Posts
Ow. My fingers. How do you type so much on silly subjects all the time Defender.
Like doods writing their novels at coffe shops on their laptops.
Because writing is not writing unless everyone can see.
kind of like how i like to have an audience while playing a video game, even solo
We'll see when he answers back.
honestly, sometimes, you guys's posts could be summarized to this
Defender said: RAWR RAWR RAWR
Pata said : RAWR RAWR RAWR.
I mean, I think you guys are cool and all, but damn.
masturbating is not masturbating unless I get a standing ovation.
So, you jerk it standing up, and your mom claps after you finish?
and I give encores.
RAWR RAWR RAWR.
e - rawr rawr rawr
I'm looking at a list of games that have sold a million copies in Japan.
Almost all of them are made by two companies.
Square Enix and Nintendo.
Dang.
Haha what. The graphics wars are nowhere near over. True, I can see graphical improvements gradually becoming less important in the future, as the power of game systems approaches the natural limits of the human eye and how big a TV screen the average person can afford/will tolerate. But that's still a long way off.
1 ) A Gesture based system is inferior to a button system
2 ) The Wii (Generally) can not have good competitive games
3 ) Competitive games are the foundation for great games
4 ) Casual players enjoy medicracy
So with that, can I conclude the following?
Defender's ideal single player game would have the player push a single button and have them win the game. Less user input (or possible error) the better.
In a multiplayer (competitive) game, players should beable to perform what they want on will, there interface is second nature.
Defender's gaming style is play to win (competitive) and your more interested in the result and not neccessarily the journey. beating a level is important, not the steps it took to accomplish the feat.
LCDs and Plasma TV's are terrible (for games) because they have an inherit delay (theres no relavnce to this remark but I'd say its a safe bet)
****
I will first say a gesture system is not inferior to a button system, it solely depends on the type of game you are trying to create. What makes gesture's wonderful is that users do NOT have to be "good" at the action they are mimicking, they just have to be good enough.
A good example would be Wii sports where the player is gesturing a simple action and gets outcomes like a perfect golf swing or tennis serve. 1:1 would require either the players to be very good or the games to be ridicously simple. For example take guitar hero as an example. It really is a Gesture System when compare it to a real guitar. If you want me to further expand on this comment I'll do it later, but I hope you can understand the benfits of gesture vs 1:1
Gesture vs button is again, game dependent. Remember, one of the motif's about the Wii was that games (and controllers) were getting too complex (too many buttons) the reason this occured is that games had more and more actions. You either need buttons (bad) or complex input (ala SF - bad) using the standard paradiam. Gestures systems allow for a near limitless, simple to remember and understand control options.
However (like complex input) is more prone to user error. At this stage Gesture controls can be equated to an input sequance with buttons.
Gesture recognition can also be very very fast or very slow based on how the developer chooses to do it. I know a bit about Wii development (well motion sensing to be specific) so hear me out.
First off the Wii remote is basically three accelerometers that give you X,Y,Z readings in real time. It is up to the developer to take that data and do what they will with it. Yes there is some middle ware to help with gesture recongition but developers can have full control is they so desire. The speed of recongition is based on the number of possible gestures in any given moment. The more possible gestures the more time it'll take for the game to recongize the action (needs to ensure theres a 90% match for gesture before taking action). However this can be in the order of milliseconds, it depends on the speed of the input (big movement vs small movement) the Wii technically cant tell the difference.
Games do not have to be competitive to be good. Some of the best games are not competitive, like SimCity, Zelda and Mario. This is a matter of taste and there are many top selling and critcally acclaimed games that are not competitive.
Casual gamers will buy what ever the good games are. Yes they'll sometimes buy whats "crap" but those games still sell like crap in the end. Only the great games that appeal to the largest market will truely sell well. The next great game to appeal to the largest market will be next big seller, this is one reason why all Blizzard games sell so well. They appeal to the largest market from the casual and unskilled to the hardcore and pro players. Nintendo games also do that for a majority of there franchise titles and there sales reflect that also.
To Defender:
Just because (many) people do not see gaming in the (serious) manner that you do does not make it wrong in anyway. You can spew as much technical jargon as you want but gaming is an art not a sceience.
Why did I spend the time to make a wall of text I dont know... maybe its cause I cant sleep
That is NOT what defender is saying. goddamn.
I'm fine with misstating his points to make fun of him but seriously.
That's a little much.
Then WTF is he saying? I must've lost the point after getting crit by the billions of text ( I was bored enough to read)
if the point is "rawr rawr" then okay!
Well I put it to the extreme end.
On one end you have little to no input vs 1:1 realistic simulation. Of course we'll say the best is a balance of the two but where does that lie exactly?
I feel the Wii lies closer to the middle since its a combination of buttons and motion (gestures) then simple tap tap of previous controllers.
I may be using hyperbole here.
Defender is a complex lover of vidjagames.
I was looking at it from a controller standpoint then from an actual game design one when I made that statement since you could have that on the Wii (I'm looking at you DBZ on hard) or any other system.
So long as it was an actual beat-em-up. The current generation of gamers should not have to endure a new hovercart level.
wtf? enduring is what games are all about.
you automatically lose for writing such a long response to defender being defender for the sake of being defender
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
Maybe that's true, but the bigger issue is when you take that analysis and apply it to everyone, like he tends to do.
I made a TD for iphone and windows phone!
Except I already named 1:1 swordfighting, which isn't something I've seen in a fighting game except maybe if you count Die By The Sword. You retard.
Good, except that this "API information" is just the most obvious, bare-bones shit that the Wii would obviously need just to function. In fact, this doesn't even say what the API is or whether or not the built-in gesture-recognition system I suggested even exists. This just talks about the raw dataflow to and from the Wiimote, which is not necessarily all that the developer sees. In short, you just gave me "what the device does" and neglected to consider that there are layers like "OS" and "engine" that can/must lie between the game and the device.
But again, I doubt you're even a programmer, so you don't know what you're talking about.
Oh, and even if this document WERE a list of exactly what the developer API exposes, it still doesn't explain whether or not complex recognition schemes would run in respectable amounts of time on the CPU while also running a game. So in short, there's a huge amount of really key information that you're missing.
I'll say it again: You don't know what you don't know. I'm a fucking professional in the field and I admit that I don't know exactly what's what here; why are you, someone who doesn't even sound like a programmer, making assertions about the API when you can't even tell the difference between a device's raw I/O data and an API?
Yeah, I'll "pull my head out of my ass" by putting up a bunch of I/O flags and calling it an API, thereby demonstrating that I don't know anything at all. I mean, I would do that, but you've beaten me to it and I don't want to look like I'm just mirroring you.
Oh my fucking god that's not even close to what I said. Did you even read, or did you just decide to say something stupid without making it relevant?
First off, there's no "depth" in world exploration. I think you don't even know what "gameplay depth" means. Gameplay depth refers to levels of skill where players discover that some new or different player skill can be improved to make them more effective at the game. For example, in Soul Calibur, the base depth layer is just button-mashing. That's where new players come in. The next layer down is when a player learns to guard and then counter-attack. After that, players start learning to use "throw" and "low" attacks to get around the other guy's guard. Once the players learn to guard low (which ducks under throw attacks), they start learning how to switch up "low", "throw", and "mid" attacks to confuse the other guy and break through his guard. These are just the first few levels, but at each level of depth, the game becomes about something new. At first, it's just a dumb mashing game. Some players never get past that depth level; they just pick Maxi and mash away. After that, the game starts to be about guarding and using retaliatory combos. That quickly devolves into everybody just standing around and holding guard, at which point some players will think "I've discovered all there is to know about this game" and will not progress. Other players, though, will discover the next level, which is "stuff that hits through normal guard." As they explore this level, they'll start to recognize when they need to duck or guard low to avoid leg strikes or high grabs.
These are depth layers. At each layer, the core gameplay appears to revolve around something else. You are technically playing the same game, but your focus is on something that you didn't even realize was there before.
With that in mind, please explain to me how TP has "depth" in its exploration of the world.
Pata, choosing a difficulty setting is simply choosing a version of the game you wish to play. Choosing to play with purposely bad strategy to make the game artificially harder is totally different. There are two big differences:
1) In games where you pick the difficulty setting, you are making a selection of what game you want to play and then playing it. You are essentially playing a different but extremely similar game. This game is a legitimate version of the main game, and it was created by the developer.
2) After you pick a difficulty level, you're not in control of that. When you choose to play through a game in some weird style, you're able to go back on that decision at any time, plus the balance for that "mode" is not set out by the game developers. The TP and KH2 "I will just deprive my character of power" options are not "integrated into the gameplay" at all because the developers did not create and balance-adjust that. You did! God of War, on the other hand, IS integrated into the gameplay because the developers put it in there and were therefore able to test it and balance-adjust it and make it work the way they wanted it to.
If graphics mean nothing, then why does John Carmack have so much money? If graphics mean nothing, then why do people bother building hardware like video cards? Who's buying those $600 video cards? Who's buying those next-gen consoles? Why do they keep coming up with new versions of OpenGL and DirectX? Why does time and money keep getting invested in improving something that "doesn't matter"? It's been a LONG TIME of people producing better and better graphics through software and hardware...why?
Also, this isn't the first time that people have said "wow, these graphics are the best that there will ever need to be." I've heard that statement time after time and they always get better. We're not at "holodeck" level graphics yet; we're gonna keep on moving up.
In short, people clearly haven't declared that they mean nothing, because they keep buying them. Also, if you just want to say "well, people SAID that they don't care about graphics," well, yeah, they've said that a thousand times, but somehow the economy keeps supporting better graphics hardware and software. Just like how if you say you don't care what a girl looks like, but you only ever ask out the hot girls...guess what? Say it all you want, that doesn't mean it's true.
Like Shorty just said, it's pretty stupid not to make an effort to understand why you think or feel the way you do in ANY area of life. You are spending time and money on these things, it might be cool to know why. Uuuuugggh I need to give reasons.
1) You will be able to find games that match your desires by understanding exactly what it is you like instead of just buying games based on the box art and marketing hype.
2) You will be able to find deeper enjoyment by discovering layers of subtlety that would've been invisible to you beforehand. You know how some people can tell really good wine or beer or steak from crappy wine/beer/steak? Appreciation leads to greater enjoyment.
when does Mario Strikers Charged come out?
I am hella excited for it
no US release date yet
europe isn't supposed to get good things before us
I am outraged
Also the developers are European
I'm snipping you here because you are so totally wrong.
First off, my favorite games are multiplayer cooperative. Now, that does often take the form of, say, Warcraft Arranged Team matches, so it can also be considered competitive, but I also like "single-player" style games like DOOM or Gears or Tenchu 3 where they just let you have other players with you.
Secondly, a game where you push a button and win is exactly what I don't like. I have made it clear to most people (apparently not you) that I like DEPTH. I like layers upon layers of skill. An "I Win" button is a zero-skill (and thus zero-depth) game, so that's the worst possible game for me.
Play-to-win is not in any way mutually exclusive with play-for-fun. Play-to-win reveals the quality of the game by unravelling layers of depth as players get better. It adds to replay value or longevity because it's almost like discovering a new game within the old game. Not discovering these layers can make a game seem stale or used-up before it should.
Again. If they hadn't wanted that to be an option they would have made them required.
And you can always go back and pick an easier difficulty level. Just because you have to go back and click "new game" dosn't mean you can't.
Again. If they give you the option, it's a "difficulty level" even if they don't say it directly.
Your obesseion with combat is idiotic.
Video games do not need to be a contest. They can just be fun. It has depth because there's so much stuff hidden deeply in there.
What about games like the Sim City? Is there depth there? You don't kill anyone so I guess not!
Tetris? Nope! Nothing there but a score! No depth whatsoever.
Animal Crossing? What do you mean I can't kill my neighbors? How shallow!
Hardcore gamers are buying 600$ video cards. Hardcore gamers may be the loudest but they are far from the largest.
Essentially game makers are in polygon dick waving contests, in which in order to enjoy the game you need to but that expensive video card and then later having to but a new one.
And people wonder why big, flashy, PC gaming isn't happening much anymore.
And last I checked, the "next-gen console" (and anyone who uses that term to describe any system that's out is a toolbox) that most people are buying is the Wii.
That's fine.
That doesn't mean people are going to pay for the shiny graphics. Most people don't want to pay that much.
You seem to think that just because they can make a console that powerful they must. Why should they when all it does is cause them to bleed money and make gaming ever more expensive?
Oh. Right. Because you can't bear to think that the dreaded "mainstream" liking the same things you do. The only people who should play games are those who earn them darn it!
The market isn't going to support the expensive hardware jump that the 360 and PS3 represent.
Both of them are going to be niche, only bought by the hardcore. And guess what. Super Shiny graphics are expensive, and are getting more expensive faster then the number of hardcore gamers is growing.