Or maybe it's just because no one has made a good inde game yet.

As for those two movies, they're till nowhere near things like Star Wars, the Titantic, Pirates of the Carribean, The Lord of the Rings, etc.

Technical achievement is nothing to scoff at. And it's something that all these movies have done. It's something that the majority of the most renowned games have done.

Thompsonwhore

dude you have so little idea what you are talking about that it is pointless to keep talking. "no good inde games.." "napolean dynamite and any other low budget movie is nowhere near pirates of the carribean"... dude it is like you are living in a glass bubble.

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]you obviously have no idea what goes on behind the scenes so it is a waste to even try talking to you... but if you want ideas that can be done without graphics just go to IGF (independent games festival)'s site and look at some of the winners from past years.Thompsonwhore

And where is the success for these games?

nowhere because gamers do not care about inde games which is a story for another day... but movies like the Blair Witch project and Napolean Dynamite make dozens of times their budget....

Counter-Strke is better because it's a 3D game. You couldn't do the same things in Wolfenstein that you can in Counter-Strike.

It's cited as one of, if not the best FPS ever made because it's 3D and because of it's gameplay.

You couldn't have the gameplay without the advancement in graphics.

Thompsonwhore

FPS were done in 2d... Catacomb 3d comes to mind. anyway CS is a mod and that is not my point man. NOWADAYS that the graphics have become so expensive to do they are killing gaming. before graphics did not cost so much so it did not cripple ideas before they even made it off the drawing board.

FlockofSpagheti

please. PLEASE tell me the guy in your sig was joking. Sorry for being off topic.

Spyderfan1212

lol, he was... no problem.

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

[QUOTE="AntiType"]A lot of you are missing his comment.he is NOT talking about finished products that may or may not have good gameplay and graphics. he is talking about games on the drawing boards that are never made becuase the gameplay would be a risk. It costs way to much money (for graphics, to make it acceptable) for a company to make these sort of games these days.
All we are getting now are tried and true gameplay that is getting so very stale and boring now.Thompsonwhore

exactly right man...

Development costs are a necessary risk. Movie studios face the same risk. But low production movies hardly see success. The same applies to games as well.

To want to go back in time with graphics is not going to work. The standard is already set. And it will keep being set higher and higher.

There's no reason you can't take a risk on gameplay and have good graphics.

You're not going to see success with a bad game nor are you going to see success with bad graphics.

If you can think of new ideas for gameplay that can be done without new technology, I'd love to hear them.

you obviously have no idea what goes on behind the scenes so it is a waste to even try talking to you... but if you want ideas that can be done without graphics just go to IGF (independent games festival)'s site and look at some of the winners from past years.

So, going through a text-based adventure game is that much more interactive than a book, huh.

If you say so.

Clearly, you're of an opposite opinion than the rest of the industry. Maybe better looking visuals doesn't immerse you in the game, but it certainly does for me and apparently, the grand majority. As technology advances, gameplay advances. It allows for things that weren't possible before.

Graphics are not just superficial.

I don't know about you, but I like Counter-Strike a lot more than I like Castle Wolfenstein.

Thompsonwhore

if you had ever played a text-based adventure you would know how they work but oh well. anyway Counter-strike may be better than Castle wolfenstein but it is not because of graphics... it is because Castle wolfenstein was just a mediocre game overall at the time only 6 months later and the legendary Ultima underworld was released... which is better than both not because of graphics but because it was just a good game.

A lot of you are missing his comment.he is NOT talking about finished products that may or may not have good gameplay and graphics. he is talking about games on the drawing boards that are never made becuase the gameplay would be a risk. It costs way to much money (for graphics, to make it acceptable) for a company to make these sort of games these days.
All we are getting now are tried and true gameplay that is getting so very stale and boring now.AntiType

exactly right man...

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]you have a point there I suppose... but even games with no graphics besides text (text-based adventure games) have been amazing and even some of the greatest ever... Thompsonwhore

Maybe you should just be reading books?

you can't interact with books..

TC I agree with you for once btw have you ever played Odin Sphere on the PS2. Its a gorgeous 2D side scrolling brawler with RPG elements the art direction of it is really nice too. You should give it a try.jasonharris48

I have heard of it but I never got the chance to play it... I will need to pick that up I forgot all about it...

[QUOTE="FlockofSpagheti"]

[QUOTE="Thompsonwhore"]Do you think bioshock, uncharted, or any other big story telling games would be able to tell the story the same way with basic 3d models and basic sounds?Thompsonwhore

uncharted is a big story telling game?? how do you know if it is not out yet... anyway what does sound have to do with this I said that sound is great and should advance... graphics outside of art ****are meaningless on the other hand because all they do is drive the budget through the roof. Bioshock could have been done just as well with basic 3d or even 2d if it was properly handled... good developers know how to make the most of what they have.

That wasn't my quote.

lol man I don't know how that happened... oh well.