Innovation vs. Traditional gaming.

[Sterling]

I've seen many topics about similar subjects, and many replies that say similar things. So I ask what is your opinions tempers?

As I stand I'm a big supporter of Nintendo. Great first party titles, fun gameplay, etc. While, the Wii may have been the most innovative console this generation, it certainly isn't the best. I've simply gotten more enjoyment as a whole on my 360. Great customer service, great online services, pretty games, and innovative traditional gameplay. The only thing the Wii had after I got my 360 was fist party titles, and it's easily hacked. When I heard the Wii U will be featuring much more flexible online services, updated graphics, and an interesting controller scheme, I boggled. Now I boggle at all the hate Nintendo is getting from their announcement. I mean, many of these arguments I saw before the Wii was released. With Nintendo these day, you automatically know they're going to do something that makes them stand out. I wish people would wait before drawing their conclusions.


With the 3DS vs Vita argument, I deem there to be no argument. Nintendo really dropped the ball on this one. Vita looks to be an all around better handheld. Crisp graphics, and some good Sony games will be launched with it. The launch lineup with the 3DS was stale, mediocre, and unimpressive. One of the only reasons I bought the 3DS so soon is because of the OoT remake which looks absolutely fantastic. Which was probably a mistake as I'm seeing tons of PSP games that I want to play now. Notably that Tactics Ogre game.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Innovation should come from gameplay, not using stupid control methods.

There's no reason that games can't keep getting innovative with the same control scheme. I'm just getting sick of this whole "Wii generation" where all of the sudden people do nothing but scream "INNOVATION" and nothing else. All the consoles were really similar last generation but they were all still great.

Devs just need to make good games, not focus on using "innovative" control schemes.

 

[KingVamp]

That can have both is the way I feel and that without mind blowing graphics.

 

[Sterling]

Innovation should come from gameplay, not using stupid control methods.

There's no reason that games can't keep getting innovative with the same control scheme. I'm just getting sick of this whole "Wii generation" where all of the sudden people do nothing but scream "INNOVATION" and nothing else. All the consoles were really similar last generation but they were all still great.

Devs just need to make good games, not focus on using "innovative" control schemes.

While it's true innovation can be derived from gameplay, what's wrong with a wonky control scheme? It works, sometimes it's uncomfortable, and there are more than one peripherals that change said control scheme. I'll agree with you to a certain extent. Many 360 games just tack on a multiplayer experience without makeing it different enough. One of the very reasons I love RDR is because the Multiplayer was much more fresh.

Need I remind you that the Wii in all it's faded glory has great games like the tales games, or Twilight Princess, or even No More Heroes. Would the gameplay been different had there been no Wii mote involved? I consider the TP version on the GC to be vastly gimped after I played the Wii version. Hell, I even recall you saying that Mad world was fun flailing about like an idiot. Would it have been less insane if the Wii mote hadn't been involved. None of the Gameplay innovations would have been as feasible or fun without the Wiimote.

By the way, I'm not screaming innovation just to be heard. I'm screaming innovation because it's just that. No one else has even thought about putting a functional screen in a controller past the failed Dreamcast.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

Need I remind you that the Wii in all it's faded glory has great games like the tales games, or Twilight Princess, or even No More Heroes. Would the gameplay been different had there been no Wii mote involved? I consider the TP version on the GC to be vastly gimped after I played the Wii version. Hell, I even recall you saying that Mad world was fun flailing about like an idiot. Would it have been less insane if the Wii mote hadn't been involved. None of the Gameplay innovations would have been as feasible or fun without the Wiimote.

By the way, I'm not screaming innovation just to be heard. I'm screaming innovation because it's just that. No one else has even thought about putting a functional screen in a controller past the failed Dreamcast.

Twilight Princess was a game that really did benefit from new controls but it was never a bad game in itself. No More Heroes could easily suffice without motion controls (it's probably my favorite game and I can say I could live without some motion controls) and Tales has always worked without motion controls.

The Dreamcast was/is remembered for bringing forth things like online play before they its competitors, not for the VMU. I'm not saying a screen on a controller is a bad idea, it's just that Nintendo has been continually subbing crucial elements like graphics (I don't give a fuck what the "GRAPHICS DON'T MATTER" whores say, I want my games to look mindfuckingly pretty and I want them to look this generation, plus more graphical power means more room to expand your game) and actually making upgrades for "HEY LOOK AT HOW COOL OUR CONTROLLER IS." I'm not gonna pay hundreds of dollars for a WiiU when it seems to be offering nothing over last generation consoles outside of a new controller and first parties. I'd rather have all the third party titles this generation than any of the Nintendo titles.

 

[Ikki]

I don't give a flying shit, really. If they can innovate without screwing up, good. If they don't innovate, I have no problem, I like games how they are now.

 

[Sterling]

Is there a problem with the Wii U's potential graphics looking better than the PS3? I highly doubt that the graphics are going to get any better with the next generation of home consoles. In fact, I predict that Sony and Microsoft are going to do something just as crazy as Nintendo. What you don't seem to realize is that the PS4 is supposedly 4 years away from now, and the same goes for the 720. That's plenty of time for Sony and Microsoft to have a better looking console out. My other questions is why, haven't they already shown something? I personally think that they can't make the graphics any better. So they're having to do something drastically different.

You're not thinking straight man. Nintendo is offering graphics better than the PS3. Not just a controller with a screen. Look, as of now, all those 3rd party title you want more than first party Nintendo titles have the potential to come to the Wii U in the future. What do you have to lose if the Wii U exceeds expectations while having all the Nintendo exclusives, and your much coveted 3rd party titles? You want mindfuckinly pretty graphics, you're not going to find them this or next generation. However, there is a game called life where all the players are real, and you can touch, feel, and look at things so real you'd swear they were.

 

[choconado]

It's funny that you would bring up graphics in a thread about innovation. Graphics are not unimportant, but on the list of important parts of a game, they come last. What comes first is "is it fun?" Because remember, we almost always play games to PLAY, i.e. it's a game we're buying, not a piece of art for decoration.
A good game will always make up for poor graphics. Great graphics will NEVER make up for a poor game.

 

[Midna]

"Innovation" can rock when done properly. The Nintendo DS was God tier with its two screens and touch screen.

Nintendo's doing something odd now though. For basically the first time ever, they've defied the generation jump. They're releasing a console 2-3 years before everyone else. And it's not only superior in graphics and processing, the controller is really out there. I honestly don't know what's going to happen. Will games be developed for the Wii U, stripped down and ported to the 360 and PS3? Will they be be developed as always on 360, then ported to Wii U with some cheap gimmicks hacked on? And then what happens when Sony and Microsoft release their inevitably more powerful consoles? Time is going to have to tell...

Edit: I think the more professional studios are going to give Wii U games a suitable upgrade in controls and graphics if they port them over. Not all studios will though...

 

[KingdomBlade]

Graphics are not unimportant, but on the list of important parts of a game, they come last.

I don't agree.

I don't think it's more important than presentation or music. Personally, I think music is more valuable than graphics, but in general, most people would say otherwise.

 

[Sterling]

Graphics are not unimportant, but on the list of important parts of a game, they come last.

I don't agree.

I don't think it's more important than presentation or music. Personally, I think music is more valuable than graphics, but in general, most people would say otherwise.

Music does a lot of things. Sets mood, feeling, and epicness. Even with sub par graphics, music can create a creepy of horror setting. Then again, graphics can do the same thing, but without matching music they mean nothing. Presentation is also important. I can tell you how many times a shitty menu made a game less enjoyable.

 

[KingdomBlade]

Graphics are not unimportant, but on the list of important parts of a game, they come last.

I don't agree.

I don't think it's more important than presentation or music. Personally, I think music is more valuable than graphics, but in general, most people would say otherwise.

Music does a lot of things. Sets mood, feeling, and epicness. Even with sub par graphics, music can create a creepy of horror setting. Then again, graphics can do the same thing, but without matching music they mean nothing. Presentation is also important. I can tell you how many times a shitty menu made a game less enjoyable.

In terms of importance, I just feel that graphics are the most important in a general fashion (I prefer music, but hey, I'm being objective here). If a game had beautiful orchestrated music, but the graphics were the worst in the world (like, E.T. The Game bad), I don't think anyone would play it. However, if a game was the most beautiful in the world but was completely music-less, someone will be playing it, except with their MP3 player on or something.

I'm not saying they aren't important, just that they probably aren't as important as graphics are.

 

[Midna]

A beautiful hi def game with no music?
Sounds ghastly.
I might even rather play Super Mario 64 with amazing, catchy, orchestral music than hi def and no music at all.

 

[Sterling]

A beautiful hi def game with no music?
Sounds ghastly.
I might even rather play Super Mario 64 with amazing, catchy, orchestral music than hi def and no music at all.

Exactly. There are many bricks that make up a great game/system, but graphical capabilities is a brick that if removed/weakened won't totally crumble the wall.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

*post*

You act like offering graphics slightly better than a system that came out 5 years ago is something that should be celebrated. EDIT: That's like my bragging about getting a computer that can run Half Life 2.

Yeah, congratulations Nintendo on still being a generation behind! Bravo, bravo!

Seriously, this is retarded. Nintendo releases a system that's finally up to current gen specs half a decade after the other consoles. I'm certainly not paying hundreds of dollars for a system that's on-par or a very minor upgrade of something I paid much less for. Oh, and it'll take years for it to build a library equal to the Xbox 360 and PS3. And no, Nintendo first parties don't make it better. Nintendo thinks it does, fanboys think it does, but to me and other Xbox 360/PS3 gamers, it absolutely does not.

 

[KingdomBlade]

A beautiful hi def game with no music?
Sounds ghastly.
I might even rather play Super Mario 64 with amazing, catchy, orchestral music than hi def and no music at all.

Exactly. There are many bricks that make up a great game/system, but graphical capabilities is a brick that if removed/weakened won't totally crumble the wall.

No Music =/= Super Mario 64's graphics but, No Music = Atari Graphics. It's all about degree here.

Would you rather play a bunch of dots on a screen with orchestrated music or a Crysis graphics without music?

 

[Midna]

A beautiful hi def game with no music?
Sounds ghastly.
I might even rather play Super Mario 64 with amazing, catchy, orchestral music than hi def and no music at all.

Exactly. There are many bricks that make up a great game/system, but graphical capabilities is a brick that if removed/weakened won't totally crumble the wall.

No Music =/= Super Mario 64's graphics but, No Music = Atari Graphics. It's all about degree here.

Would you rather play a bunch of dots on a screen with orchestrated music or a Crysis graphics without music?

You're going to extremes. An Atari argument is not remotely relevant in 2011. There are not going to be any dots-on-the-screen games. There will, however, be Nintendo's usual lagging behind in graphics. Which is what we're talking about.

A primitive Atari game with orchestrated music basically has nothing but that music. There's not a lot in the gameplay. So your analogy becomes relevant when we remove everything but graphics from Crysis. Perhaps a Crysis game that plays its self while you can maybe shift the camera a bit. And in this more relevant analogy, I still pick the music over the graphics.

 

[KingdomBlade]

A beautiful hi def game with no music?
Sounds ghastly.
I might even rather play Super Mario 64 with amazing, catchy, orchestral music than hi def and no music at all.

Exactly. There are many bricks that make up a great game/system, but graphical capabilities is a brick that if removed/weakened won't totally crumble the wall.

No Music =/= Super Mario 64's graphics but, No Music = Atari Graphics. It's all about degree here.

Would you rather play a bunch of dots on a screen with orchestrated music or a Crysis graphics without music?

You're going to extremes. An Atari argument is not remotely relevant in 2011. There are not going to be any dots-on-the-screen games. There will, however, be Nintendo's usual lagging behind in graphics. Which is what we're talking about.

A primitive Atari game with orchestrated music basically has nothing but that music. There's not a lot in the gameplay. So your analogy becomes relevant when we remove everything but graphics from Crysis. Perhaps a Crysis game that plays its self while you can maybe shift the camera a bit. And in this more relevant analogy, I still pick the music over the graphics.

Thing is, graphics visualize the gameplay.

Music enhances it, but graphics are essential to translate the gameplay. A game without graphics is nothing, but a game without music is still something.

Think about this, the game with the best gameplay in the world to you. What would it be like without graphics? It's a gigantic command line. Without music? Something you can still play.

The analogy is (I will admit) irrelevant, but just trying to prove that graphics which exist are essential. Music isn't.

I'll get back to the topic on my next post.

 

[Guild McCommunist]

There's never gonna be an instance where they'll basically put absolutely awful graphics next to absolutely amazing music. It just rarely (or never) happens. They go hand in hand. Comparing which one is more important is basically irrelevant.

Get back on topic, please.

 

[Midna]

And again, this is 2011. We don't have any and won't have any games completely without graphics.

I'm done with the stupid analogies. Graphics, in their simplest form, make the game playable. But we've advanced well beyond that. Everything we have can provide sufficient visuals for a brilliant game. In 2011 we're down to nitpicking over the resolution and graphical fluff.

The argument remains about Nintendo's eternally skimping out on the graphics. So yes, what's actually relevant here is not whether a game like ET or SM64 stands up to a game like Crysis, but rather whether a game like Super Mario Galaxy can take the heat.