joeyg1097's forum posts

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#1 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

[quote="joeyg1097"]From the big guns coming to PS3 that apparently use the potential of BluRay, the graphics aren't exponentially greater than what DVD can produce, yet it takes up 20-30 gb of space? MGS4 needs more than 50 gb, according to Kojima, and yet it doesn't make a 5-6x leap in graphics with 50 gb? Is it a larger variety of high-res textures? Could it be the sound?KraigA


Why should the game be 5 times better graphics just because it is upto 5 times larger in memory capacity.
The gameplay will obviously be longer.. (games like "Gears of war", I have heard criticism of its poor length and size).. MGSIV will, I am sure, not have the problem of having a shorter game. The game may be infact, up to 5 times longer in gameplay. Not to mention that all of this will likely be in 1080p format.

You don't need BluRay to make a long game. If MGS4 is 150 hours like Baldur's Gate was (6 CD's) or 100 hours like Oblivion or 30-50+ hours like Final Fantasy VI/VII/VIII, 80 with FFXII, or 20-30 like Super Paper Mario, or 100+ with Neverwinter Nights and its expansions (5 CD's total), 50 hours like 30 mb Ultima VII, 50 hours like LoZ: TP, it won't be because of extra storage space. Storage doesn't make a game longer... it makes it fancier looking/sounding.

1080p is a screen resolution. Its ability to run in 1080p will be determined by the Cell, RSX, and your output device. Now, if you're talking about CGI, yes, extra storage makes this possible.

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#2 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

You know...thinking about these old greats makes me wonder why there are no games with this kind of humor released anymore.

I know there is a new LSL (goes to college or something)...but it didn't really look that great.  The new Sam and Max is funny...but they really can't touch the old Sierra adventure games great humour.

What a shame...

dnuggs40

I blame the limitations of new technology... as in new technology is limiting games. Why try to make brilliant scripts when new fangled graphics can carry an unoriginal game? Why make tons of hilarious or creative dialogue when you can only record so much voice acted speech (in combo with awesome graphics: I realize that many great games, eg. Sam & Max, Monkey Island, some of the Space Quest games, had full voice acting. See Oblivion for my point.)? Why spend time on the villain and hero backstories and personality when you could make realistic physics and water to make eyes bleed?

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#3 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

[QUOTE="punkcoop"] Maybe if I could take Wario and B***CH slap Princess Peach and lop off Luigi's head in MK64 I could be hardcore.Jandurin

I'm not gonna lie.  That sounds kind of fun.

This is one reason why the Smash Bros. series is so much fun. :p

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#4 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

For fun and to stress my point, I'm also going to argue that DVDs and CDs aren't necessary as well. They add a lot to the graphics and sound of games over diskettes, a much bigger leap than from DVD to BluRay/HD-DVD, but where can you get the quality of graphics that your mind produces?

Why don't books need to have tons of pictures (or any pictures) or audio to create an engaging story that can have people captivated for 4-6 hours straight at a time? Why do many people enjoy classic games that have seemingly simplistic graphics? I would think that one of the reasons for all of the above is that the mind can produce graphics that far exceed what we can do on computers today. With both text and pixelated graphics, a realistic picture can be implied in our minds which allows us to fill in the gaps and become fully engaged with even mediocre looking content.

Another main reason is that they both have what makes their respective mediums great: a driving story, interesting characters, and colourful backdrops for books, story, characters, music, and great gameplay mechanics in games, all of which don't take up much storage space.

Double Dragon is still an awesome game today. It featured simplistic beat 'em up gameplay but with added depth in headlocking and throwing enemies, jump kicking which had to be timed right to be effective, the dragon kick that was sometimes tough to pull off when you really needed it, and engaging, strategic coop play. Battle Toads was also very similar and, when they were put together in Battle Toads & Double Dragon, it was a godly game.

The original Kirby is still just as deep a game today as it was back then with its enemy-power absorption system. Megaman is still a remarkable game. Street Fighter 2 is still a deep fighting game. The Mario games before Gamecube, anyone? How about the early Zeldas? The early Sonic games. The King's Quest, Quest for Glory, Space Quest, Police Quest, and Leisure Suit Larry series (5.25" and 3.5" diskettes) during Sierra's golden years. The Ultima series (as I mentioned) where at least one came out every 2 years and almost all of them were great, possibly legendary. The early Final Fantasy games had stories that still rival today's best, notably Final Fantasy VI, argued by many as the best FF ever. Realistic graphics aren't necessary for great games.

Most of these classics also have terrible midi (or worse) music. Why is it that we can remember the tunes of classic games but might not know the opening theme of Oblivion? Everyone who's played Chrono Trigger knows Chrono and Frog's themes. Everyone who's played Final Fantasy VI knows Terra, Locke, Cyan, and Shadow's themes. I can still remember Double Dragon's theme. The original sounding Mario and Zelda themes are still fresh in my mind. They were simple, you could hum them, and yet they were complex enough to really drive the action or story. This doesn't mean that they're better than symphonic music but it doesn't take realistic sounding music to make a great game. Even symphonic music has to be used well. Why is Beethoven's 5th known everywhere? One reason is that it is simple enough to be hummed but so very, very deep. Most of Oblivion's music is complex and adds atmosphere but is not memorable (both a good and bad thing).

Great games don't need realistic graphics and sound. They need great gameplay and WELL USED graphics and sound, classic games being brilliant examples of this. This is why BluRay, DVDs, and CD's aren't NECESSARY. CDs and DVDs add a lot to games, mind you, that give exponentially greater graphics and sound over diskettes with little cost to gameplay, even allowing the addition of new gameplay elements. We've come to an interesting time where BluRay/HD-DVD can possibly add even better graphics and sound but at what cost? From the big guns coming to PS3 that apparently use the potential of BluRay, the graphics aren't exponentially greater than what DVD can produce, yet it takes up 20-30 gb of space? MGS4 needs more than 50 gb, according to Kojima, and yet it doesn't make a 5-6x leap in graphics with 50 gb? Is it a larger variety of high-res textures? Could it be the sound? How much better can sound get that would be worth noticing? Would you need a theatre surround setup with no ambient background noise from neighbours/animals and an acoustically perfect room to notice? More useless voice acting or enough voice acting so that the game is a 5 hour movie, listening to all the spoken dialogue, with some gameplay elements? How much would such a game cost developers and how much time would it take to make?

As some other commentators have stated, BluRay can be used. Storage space in general can add to games, making them look prettier, sound better, have more music and textures for variety, have longer stories, more characters, and hours of CGI at high resolutions. More anything, however, has a cost.

Graphics and sound are limited to what is real. We can only make things look and sound as real as what we can perceive. The highest resolution we can go is that of what our eyes can see. We can make up worlds but they can only look so real.

Gameplay has no limit and transcends time (eg. classics). Games can include abilities that we both can and can't do in real life. Anything we could ever want to do can be done in a game if only developers would focus on this instead of having shinier graphics. Why not focus on improving what is limitless and does not bloat storage space and budgets?

Graphics and sound take a lot of money and time to further improve while being limited.
Anyone, however, can come up with and improve great ideas and gameplay elements for free with an almost infinite variety. Coding features does take time and money but why not focus on these elements, the things that make us keep coming back to old games? The things that give us variety of games?

The things that coincidentally don't need BluRay, DVDs, or CDs to make happen.

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#5 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

To use Oblivion as an example, voice acting takes up a lot of space, is one reason why larger storage formats are needed, and costs development time (script writing, actor briefing, recording, editing, lip synching unless an auto-syncher is used) and money. Oblivion and most games have terrible voice acting for the most part but only because of what the actors can work with.

Why do I need to hear "Hi, welcome to my blacksmithing shop. I sell the finest in armor and weapons! Look around and see what you like!" everytime I want to trade gear? No voice actor can make that line interesting (unless the character in game saying it has some odd personality or distinctive voice) and thus, I think, most people skip quite a lot of the voice acting in games. I'd bet that most people only really listen to the voice acting for plot elements or at important events, not innkeeper #5 saying "Welcome to the Flagon Inn! Can I get you a drink? Or would you like a room for the night? I can even tell you about the latest news." Beggar #3 saying "Can you spare a coin? I've got a family to feed" isn't any more interesting in voice than in text. Now, when plot elements are concerned, for example, a companion of yours that is going to sacrifice his life for your group says with voice acting "Farewell, my friend", THAT is the kind of time that voice acting imparts emotion, an empathy that transcends the text. Why can't we cut the crap and save the voice acting for the good stuff?

In this case, I would argue that technology has HINDERED gameplay since the standard now is to have voice acting. Compared to Morrowind, Oblivion's dialogue is far simpler, less interesting, and you hear the same 12 or so voices for the 1000 or so NPCs. No longer can just any NPC have quality dialogue describing their favourite parts of town, the gruesomeness of the arena, telling you about their jobs, the troubles in their lives (which might lead to small sidequests), and just paint a whole backdrop to the world to make it living and breathing. With voice acting, only so many lines can be said and only so many actors can be hired, thus there can only be so much dialogue in the game, of which, most of it would be just as good as text since the phrases don't require the emotive nuances of spoken language.

It's added bloat, making the game larger without any increase in what makes games great to play. Similarly the astounding graphics in Oblivion are wonderful but eventually they can't cover up the boring melee system (a slight improvement from Morrowind, no doubt, but too simple and repetitive since the special moves don't work often enough to bother using them. The NPCs are also far too good at blocking, thus attacking while they aren't is mainly futile since they would just block and counter, attacking while the enemy attacks has both of you getting hurt, while blocking then striking dramatically reduces your damage and leaves the enemy open. Block + counter, repeat for 100 hours... or run backwards while using projectiles), the last third of the main story quests (FedEx - a very long and anti-climactic way to ***Spoiler*** reach Paradise ***/Spoiler***), and the highly repetitive scenery (it's a fantasy game: you can vary the grass or trees every couple kilometres - the towns, however, are very well done).

What my original post is trying to say is that you can fit Oblivion in 30 mb and you can get better story, variety of music, variety of locations, variety and depth of dialogue but with mediocre graphics and sound. You can fit Oblivion onto one CD and possibly get a similar quality of the above but with better graphics and sound. You can fit Oblivion on a DVD as today and get great graphics and sound but lacking dialogue (story), wilderness variety (they do a great job on each individual town, however), and no memorable music (except perhaps the opening score).

If you follow the trend, with bigger storage space (HDD, BluRay, HD-DVD), we are going to see awesome graphics and ear melting sound but what will change about the gameplay? Better physics and AI? We can have that already on CD and DVD (Half-Life 1, Half-Life 2, Total War, Call of Duty to name a few). Better atmospheric lighting? That doesn't take up any additional storage space.

To put this in perspective, Oblivion has 1.1 gb of textures, 0.67 gb of meshes, and 1.6 gb of voices.

The game of Oblivion, the .esm file that contains all the dialogue text (subtitles), the event scripts, the map and terrain setups, the story and plot twists, the character personalities, the vision of the epic world of Tamriel and its peoples, is merely 240 mb. The shaders take up 14 mb, the music 81 mb, videos only 250 mb, and 320 mb of sound. Oblivion could fit on one CD if its main features weren't realistic graphics, full voice acting, and had lower res videos and lower bit rate sound.

You can always have better graphics, more voice acting, and better sound, but you can't as easily change the amount of time and money that developers can put into their games. Games are costing $10-30 million and 4-5 years to make with current gen graphics and sound. The main bloat factors are graphics and sound (voice acting) which is where BluRay comes in. If you want to make use of BluRay, you need better graphics and sound. Since you can't easily change developer time and money, you have to cut something out.

That something isn't going to be graphics or sound to use BluRay.

 

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#6 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

I'd say using SD flash cards was a great idea because a lot of people have digital cameras... that use SD flash cards.

If there's no harddrive, people will use their flash cards... which have pictures on them... which might tempt them to show off their pictures using the picture channel or bring their pictures to other people's houses with Wii's.

For people who don't have digital cameras, buying a flash card for their Wii will complement any camera they might eventually pick up since SD is becoming (or perhaps already is) the standard for cameras.

It goes with Nintendo's strategy to encourage interaction with real people, go outside (and take pictures), share things, and cut costs for both themselves and consumers.

A harddrive would also make the unit possibly a lot bigger than 3 DVD cases... perhaps 6 DVDs in that case, or twice as large, if console harddrives are the same size as PC ones.

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#7 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

Apparently, it's argued that you can't have epic, long, and detailed games without huge disc storage. I argue that it's only needed for hyper-realistic looking games that have either tons of textures, audio, or movies. As a case against the necessities of these aspects, let me take you back to 1992 with the Ultima series, specifically Utima VII: The Black Gate.

For those of you not familiar with this series, see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima
Specifically on Ultima VII: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultima_VII

Warning: This is going to be long since there are so many features to describe in this epic game.

Created by Richard Garriott, it featured 10's of thousands of items and NPCs. It had 100's of kilometres of explorable terrain, requiring the use of horse & cart, ship, and a magic carpet to get anywhere quickly as well as teleportation through rune stones and moon gates. Almost any item could be picked up, moved, or interacted with, whether it was a torch that you could leave lit or unlit on the ground or in your hand, window shutters that could be opened or closed, or roulette tables that you could gamble on. Ultima VII was a completely freeform RPG where you could go and do whatever you wanted to (steal, murder, fight or run from the city guards if you were observed, bake bread).

It had day/night and weather cycles that actually affected NPC behaviour. Each NPC had a daily schedule, thus you would see them walking along the streets after work to get to the tavern for dinner, after which they could go home to sleep. If it were raining, the NPCs would head indoors. You could have 8 party members out of 10 (or around thereof) at any point in time and they would not only fight by your side with melee or ranged automatically based on the preset strategy that you assign them, they would also react to your actions, such as complaining, leaving the party, or even outright attacking you when they see you steal or murder. All NPCs also had morale effects, fighting to the death, fleeing at the first signs of trouble, or states in between. Every NPC and party member could be interacted with, having written dialogue for each that differed depending on whether your PC was male or female (a pretty rare feature at the time).

Combat was real-time and required much strategy to overcome your foes. You had to be careful with missile weapons which, though deadly and weakening foes from afar, could inflict friendly fire unless you had your ranged flank the enemies. Battles typically involved your 8 person party versus 1-12 enemies at any given time ranging from roaming bandits to huge dragons that could quickly wipe out a badly equipped or inexperienced party. Chaos could ensue where your party gets separated in dark corridors either from chasing fleeing enemies or running away themselves, dropping items in the process. Related to this, torches dual wielded with weapons would suddenly go out during battles, adding to the confusion in dark spaces. Ultima VII even had KO's before death for all NPCs and monsters, unless you were hit really hard. This was good, because party death would mean literally bringing the member's corpse (which was heavy) to someone who could resurrect him. To be successful in combat, one had to balance one's party between melee front fighters and ranged as well as tailor your strategies depending on the environment (eg. open field with much manueverability vs. indoor battles in constricted corridors).

There were no set character roles, relying on stats to determine what you were good at, thus one could focus on melee stats to increase your damage and amount carryable (based on strength - each item/weapon/armour/corpse had a weight allotment) at the detriment of mana for casting spells or ranged combat. One could determine the stats of each party member to your liking, although each had particular starting statistics that would make it more favourable to have them specialize in certain areas.

It had dynamic music that depended on combat status. Whether it be victoriously chasing after fleeing enemies or having party members cut down left and right, the music changed to fit the overall progress of a real-time battle. Outside of combat, the music changed from city to city (about 12 full-fledged cities), in the wilderness, underground, or based even on the building you were in (eg. tavern).

Ultima VII had about 64 unique spells that all had different effects. One had to purchase the spells off of mages throughout the world and collect reagents used for each spell from either shops or in different areas of the wilderness. Ranging from conjuring food, altering the weather, enchanting ranged ammo, telekinesis, speak with the undead, cause everyone to dance, different projectiles/area of effect spells with status effects or direct damage, or spells to kill everyone in sight, stop time, and literally end all life (all of the 1000's or so NPCs and monsters except for 3 people I think) in the world (a fun game breaker).

 

Ultima VII: The Black Gate could take someone anywhere between 30-100 hours to beat depending on how many sidequests and how much exploration you did. This is an epic game of huge proportions that has so much character and attention to detail. I'd argue that it's size, scope, and story completely dwarf Oblivion. It begins with a simple murder investigation that you conduct to become a political intrigue involving the spread of a seemingly helpful religious cult to a tale of stopping a world destroyer from entering Britannia. If you read the Wikipedia entry, you would also see the anti-EA references scattered within its plot. Full of intrigue and those elements that make RPGs one of the greatest genres, Ultima VII sets a standard to which any RPG can be measured.

 

All of this only takes up 30 or so megabytes of disc space. It ran on a 386 processor, recommended 486.

 

Sure, the animations are frame-based (ie. an animation consisted of non-continuous frames of pictures) and the music is midi but the graphics are pleasing to the eye, the character portraits are detailed enough, the music is great for all of its tin-yness, and the gameplay is deep. For what it lacks in graphics, audio, and CGI, it more than makes up for it in those parts that make games arguably better entertainment than TV, movies, books, and stand-alone music: engaging stories with complex characters, grand musical scores, and worlds in which one can interact with.

You don't need huge storage space to make great games. Some will argue that BluRay allows for BOTH good gameplay and great graphics and atmosphere. I agree that atmosphere is important for games but that does not necessitate realistic graphics. Metroid Prime 1 is a great example of this with its subtle effects on Samus' visor from steam, water, and even her face reflected in the visor from explosions. If you fired Samus' arm canon for a long period of time, shimmering heat waves would emit from the canon for awhile. Effects like these don't require huge disc space. Combining gameplay and realistic graphics would be great except that developing such a game would take a very long time and plenty of resources. Since developers are limited in their resources, they can only spend so much time on a project.

I would rather they came up with astounding and innovative epic games with "last gen" graphics than games that take 5-7 years to develop a graphics engine that needs the space of BluRay. Give us an Ultima VII with an epic story, highly immersive world, and characters with personality.

Give us a game whose main selling point isn't in the screenshots.

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#8 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

Although I'm not much of a mind reader, I think Iwata is referring to the ease of aim and precision that the mouse/keyboard setup provides over standard gamepads. By stating this, he is saying that the Wiimote provides superior aiming ability over dual analog.

This is further evidenced by the fact that MP3 will have the option to adjust the bounding box in MP3 to be either very small (therefore aiming is like using a mouse in that you move the "center" cursor to aim, turning at the same time) or relatively large (like Red Steel but smaller: allows for firing where you aim at the screen without turning). Of course, he really could have literally meant that MP3 has PC-like controls, but the options are there so there is no need to be concerned. People will choose what they like better.

This IGN preview discusses the "expert" aim, PC-like mode of MP3: http://wii.ign.com/articles/732/732737p1.html

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#9 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

To speak in PS3 terms, it has much potential.

 Where else can you possibly get 1:1 sword/lightsabre/anything motion control? Nowhere else in the immediate future.

Where else but PC can you get elegant FPS/TPS controls? Only Wii. Dual analog is clunky. (That is not to say that console FPS/TPS's aren't good in other terms such as story or graphics.)

Where else can you possibly have free aim for both arms while dual-wielding guns? Wii with dual remotes.

Where else can you possibly get elegantly controlled overhead action games (ala Diablo 2)? Wii where your character faces and fires at wherever your cursor is at (Alien Syndrome seems to be shaping up well for this).

Where else can you possibly get RTS and point & click adventure/RPG(see Sam & Max and Neverwinter Nights) games? Potentially the Wii.

Where else can you get Nintendo first party console titles? Wii.

In short, there is a lot of potential in this system for both casuals through its ease of use and non-threatening appearance and hardcores through the possibilities of motion controls and IR pointing. Whether this will all come about will depend on developers and the support they get from Nintendo.

 

Edit: Some of this potential is being realized even now. Godfather: Blackhand Edition allows you to literally beat up your opponents in what the reviewer at Gamespot thought was quite fun (although he does mention it gets old after awhile. The IGN review of the motion controls was definitely more positive). Spiderman 3, although potentially just a movie cash-in, might be worth playing on Wii solely because you get to feel like you're playing Spidey, shooting out your webs, picking up villains and spinning em around, and swinging through the city. Smackdown vs. Raw 2008 seems like it's getting this idea by having you actually choose your melee swings by how you swing your arms and picking your graple moves by actually starting the motion of the move.

Some will say "That seems neat... except that it can be done on a standard controller, therefore the Wii is a gimmick." Although one can argue that the Wii does have things that a standard controller can't do, even if standard controllers can, the Wii makes it far more DIFFERENT (I won't even use the overused word 'fun' because, as it has been pointed out, other consoles and PC have fun games) as the TC commented. I use 'different', however, in a far more positive light than is used by the TC. It is a different experience to, in wrestling, actually pick up your opponent (who is being controlled by the guy next to you), hold him in the air as you parade him in front of the arena's audience, look over at him, flash him an evil grin, and then literally slam him into the ground, followed by motioning and triggering an ingame taunt at him. Why ever move a cursor around with an analog stick ever again when you can just point at the thing you want to perform an action on? Swing the bat instead of hitting a button. Why settle for preset moves when you might possibly be able to form your own slashes and combos? Why let the AI block for you when YOU are the master Jedi? Once again, much potential. We'll see how it turns out.

Avatar image for joeyg1097
joeyg1097

93

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#10 joeyg1097
Member since 2002 • 93 Posts

Scarface, as well.

Jeff needs to review that one... this time REAL chainsaw action!