Anyone else disappointed by the new-gen graphics? (Read before posting)

[ShiningClefairy]

I saw some of the new graphics both while playing Perfect Dark Zero at my EB games and in my new issue of Gamepro. Now, before you start making any assumptions, the reason I'm disappointed is because the graphics look too realistic. It sounds strange to me even as I type it, believe it!

I prefer sprite or polygonal graphics over the rendered, smooth, sleek graphics of today, simply because the older graphics make the games more make-believe. I like that, since games were originally an escape from the real world, not a simulation of it. That has been, and always how I will prefer my games and entertainment. It has always been easier for me to sit through a cartoon movie than it has through an action movie.

Unless they make a lot of anime-style graphics games, SSBM, Mario Sunshine, or games with graphics resembling those of the ones I mentioned, I'm going to be quite a bit disappointed with this new generation.

 

[Alchemist]

I sort of agree with you on that point, but look at all of the people that want next-gen graphics? I suppose you sort of will have that new look if you don't use an HD TV, but I guess that wouldn't really make a difference. But if you're referring to Nintendo, you should stick with them, as it seems they're staying with the same graphics with the current gen.

 

[Poke Freak]

I gotta agree with you there, the graphics are to real. Now don't get me wrong, I'm not asking them to bring back 8-bit graphics, good graphics are nice, but I do want my video game to look like a video game. Good thing Nintendo's not concatrating on graphics like the other companies.

 

[Medical Meccanica]

I don't want graphics to be TOO realistic. Then if you tried to hug Sonic you'd be committing suicide.

*bad joke*

I want smooth graphics, but that at the same time have a srt of fantasy appeal to them. Honestly I haven't seenany new gen graphics, but your descriptions give me an idea.

 

[Paradox]

Im slightly dissapointed with them but Im sure there is more to come from the XBox. The general power is more interesting, for example think of Dynasty Warriors, with bigger battles and better enemy AI, or giant mountains with endless courses on SSX. Oblivion looks to do the same type of thing, massive areas to explore, and with XBL extra areas can be added.

 

[Bulk]

I saw some of the new graphics both while playing Perfect Dark Zero at my EB games and in my new issue of Gamepro. Now, before you start making any assumptions, the reason I'm disappointed is because the graphics look too realistic. It sounds strange to me even as I type it, believe it!

I prefer sprite or polygonal graphics over the rendered, smooth, sleek graphics of today, simply because the older graphics make the games more make-believe. I like that, since games were originally an escape from the real world, not a simulation of it. That has been, and always how I will prefer my games and entertainment. It has always been easier for me to sit through a cartoon movie than it has through an action movie.

Unless they make a lot of anime-style graphics games, SSBM, Mario Sunshine, or games with graphics resembling those of the ones I mentioned, I'm going to be quite a bit disappointed with this new generation.

Exactly. You've hit the nail right on the head there. This is why I prefere games where I'm not doing something I could do in real life. Hense the reason I enjoy playing Nintendo games, there's much more imagination and fantasy stuff on the Gamecube than the PS2 or Xbox

 

[Hao Kaiser]

I think I babbled about this over the summer a bit, but your wording is much better than mine.

 

[DJ-Will]

Exactly. You've hit the nail right on the head there. This is why I prefere games where I'm not doing something I could do in real life. Hense the reason I enjoy playing Nintendo games, there's much more imagination and fantasy stuff on the Gamecube than the PS2 or Xbox

I feel the exact same way as you. When it comes to racing however, realism is a big thing for me there. I technically am still impressed with current gen graphics like Eternal Darkness, Halo 2, or the latest Splinter Cell games. Not saying I play Splinter Cell though.

 

[Serebii]

Im more disappointed for another reason

Between all generations so far there has been a noticiable difference between Graphics

NES --> SNES - Thousands of possible colour combinations to use instead of the 256 on the NES
SNES --> PSX/N64 - Inclusion of more indepth sprites and implementation of the first 3D
PSX/N64 --> GCN/PS2/XBox - More stable & smooth 3D models featuring more polygons so that there is a clear and noticable difference
GCN/PS2/XBox --> PS3/X360/Rev? - Just slightly crisper with little increase

While you may be able to fit more on screen now with he processing power...the graphics arent that much better than they were in the GCN and so forth...they're just crisper and maybe in a higher resolution with a bit more polish

Nintendo has seen this...they're focusing on gameplay aswell as having the graphical updates (although they arent going with the pointless triple processor with loads of ram which is just pointless

 

[Chris]

The reason for there not being much of a change is it seems like we've reached a temporary limit on technology. Not to mention, quite a few systems took on a helluva life until technology became more advanced.

NES (1983 in Japan) to SNES (1990 in Japan) is seven years of technological progress. Then SNES to N64 (1996 in Japan) took only six years to advance. N64 to GameCube (2001 in Japan) took only five years since we were already becoming more used to technology developing quicker. Everyone had begun to find a way to break what they thought were limitations and reach a higher level of technology.

Though take note how Sega's also done these things a lot quicker than others. Master System came out in 1985 in Japan. Then Genesis came about in 1988, TWO years before SNES. If you wanna count the Sega CD, that came about in Japan in 1991, a technology FAR different from anyone else's. The Saturn came about in 1994, six years after the Genesis and three years after the CD. Dreamcast comes in four years later, surpassing EVERYONE in the game market until the PlayStation 2 came about a year later.

It seems that until now, someone's always found a way to break that limitation that games and systems had been suffering with. So far, the most we've got right now is with smoother playing, crisper looking games. I'm sure sooner or later we'll end up going past the current technology again.

 

[Komedic Konservationist]

I saw some of the new graphics both while playing Perfect Dark Zero at my EB games and in my new issue of Gamepro. Now, before you start making any assumptions, the reason I'm disappointed is because the graphics look too realistic. It sounds strange to me even as I type it, believe it!

I prefer sprite or polygonal graphics over the rendered, smooth, sleek graphics of today, simply because the older graphics make the games more make-believe. I like that, since games were originally an escape from the real world, not a simulation of it. That has been, and always how I will prefer my games and entertainment. It has always been easier for me to sit through a cartoon movie than it has through an action movie.

Unless they make a lot of anime-style graphics games, SSBM, Mario Sunshine, or games with graphics resembling those of the ones I mentioned, I'm going to be quite a bit disappointed with this new generation.

Bravo, bravo!!!!! Encore!!!!!!! I agree with you 100%!!!!!!!

 

[The Assassin]

Well, I like my grpahics realistic.But I am disapointed because the Xbox360 did not deliver. It promised Amazing graphics. It only had better graphics, not so big enough for an A for a grade. And now, if you buy one, there is about a 70% chance it will have glitch,flaw,or it will just simply mess up. I know every console has a glitch or flaw, but the 360 just will more than likely Mess up!I think all Bill Gates wanted was money.Money and just Money. I think it was a rushed system. The realease should have at least came out Febuary 2006! I give the Xbox360: a C+ or B-. Take your pick.

 

[kingboo30]

Well, I like my grpahics realistic.But I am disapointed because the Xbox360 did not deliver. It promised Amazing graphics. It only had better graphics, not so big enough for an A for a grade. And now, if you buy one, there is about a 70% chance it will have glitch,flaw,or it will just simply mess up. I know every console has a glitch or flaw, but the 360 just will more than likely Mess up!I think all Bill Gates wanted was money.Money and just Money. I think it was a rushed system. The realease should have at least came out Febuary 2006! I give the Xbox360: a C+ or B-. Take your pick.

B-
Slightly above average.

..........
.......
....
..........
ugh. Sony fanboys are now just bashing 360 because it's way too unstable. I bet they forgot the PS2's first launch at 1000$ and would crash many times and if you breathed on it. Truly the buggiest launch there is. Yet, it sold alot. Microsoft usually takes their time but in the gaming department they are like Sony but not as bad. But can't sony think of something that doesn't have "Playstation"? I'm going to scream when I see PS4. Or "PSP2." But Nintendo does this with Gameboy...

 

[ShiningClefairy]

The reason for there not being much of a change is it seems like we've reached a temporary limit on technology. Not to mention, quite a few systems took on a helluva life until technology became more advanced.

NES (1983 in Japan) to SNES (1990 in Japan) is seven years of technological progress. Then SNES to N64 (1996 in Japan) took only six years to advance. N64 to GameCube (2001 in Japan) took only five years since we were already becoming more used to technology developing quicker. Everyone had begun to find a way to break what they thought were limitations and reach a higher level of technology.

Though take note how Sega's also done these things a lot quicker than others. Master System came out in 1985 in Japan. Then Genesis came about in 1988, TWO years before SNES. If you wanna count the Sega CD, that came about in Japan in 1991, a technology FAR different from anyone else's. The Saturn came about in 1994, six years after the Genesis and three years after the CD. Dreamcast comes in four years later, surpassing EVERYONE in the game market until the PlayStation 2 came about a year later.

It seems that until now, someone's always found a way to break that limitation that games and systems had been suffering with. So far, the most we've got right now is with smoother playing, crisper looking games. I'm sure sooner or later we'll end up going past the current technology again.

Yes, and notice how Sega is the only company not making consoles around now. They spent too much money on console production and it cost them dearly, since they based their systems on power. Their fans were happy with the 16-bit graphics of the Genesis, just check out today's poll on GameFAQs! Something that focused on gameplay and wasn't significantly different in power from the competition.

IIRC, in power:
Genesis > SNES
N64 > PSX
Gamegear > Gameboy
N-gage > GBA
PSP > DS
XBOX and GCN > PS2 (although the GPU of the GC is inferior to the PS2. Look at RE4)

The most graphically powerful console of each generation has never been the most popular, unless NES > SMS. It's always been about the games, and if it suddenly becomes graphics, The Decline of Video Gaming flash vids will become prophecy.

 

[The Power of Pika]

Graphics are good for some games. Simulation, horror and games that are designed like a movie need as realistic graphics as you can get to get the reaction wanted from the person buying it.

Though the way some people talk that they want all games realistic. This disturbs me. The video and DVD department brings out a mix of cartoons for kids, cartoons for adults (you know the Simpsons and Anime) and adult shows and movies with actors. Now here's the deal! How come people will accept all these different genres in the movie and TV department but not in the video games department?

I have been on so many forums where people want total focus on adult games rather than cartoon games these days. According to them there is no market for cartoon games. According to them, kids don't play games anymore. According to them all adults like adult games which I am one who doesn't play many. Also the stupidest one I've heard over and over again is Nintendo is kiddie because they make cartoon games. HELLO!! The SIMPSONS is watched by everyone and it is ANIMATED. What is with people these days can't they get through their heads that games that look cartoon can be played by adults. Sorry I'm sick of societies attitude these days and it makes my blood boil. What I'm saying here is that better graphics according to the people on most forums I've been on is eliminating cartoon games all together. I think that's depriving people of a genre in my opinion.

I don't like playing games that has guns and blood in them but I don't think that people should be deprived of it either. I think both should be kept. It just seems that cartoon games are starting to become scarce on the new systems and only Nintendo seems to continue catering for it. It just doesn't seem right.

Power can be used in different ways I think a cartoon game can be extended. What I mean is made longer and better story lines. They can experiment like Nintendo is doing like with Donkey Konga and so forth. M rated games can improve story line and be made longer aswell but also get better graphics. Though I do wonder sometimes. What happens when they hit graphics that looks exactly like real life? How will they improve on graphics that has hit the boundary and can't go any further? It will happen some day.

 

[WinterSnowblind]

Well, I like my grpahics realistic.But I am disapointed because the Xbox360 did not deliver. It promised Amazing graphics. It only had better graphics, not so big enough for an A for a grade. And now, if you buy one, there is about a 70% chance it will have glitch,flaw,or it will just simply mess up. I know every console has a glitch or flaw, but the 360 just will more than likely Mess up!I think all Bill Gates wanted was money.Money and just Money. I think it was a rushed system. The realease should have at least came out Febuary 2006! I give the Xbox360: a C+ or B-. Take your pick.

As Edward Elric just pointed out, the graphics we currently have with the 360 is pretty much the limit of our technology at the moment. Games CAN'T look any better. I'm sure sometime in the future somebody will come out with something that completely changes out technology, and gives us life like graphics or whatever. But for the moment, that's what you're getting. If you're expecing the the PS3 to have better graphics.. then you're going to be pretty dissapointed, we know for a fact the Revolution isn't as powerful. Also, will people stop this crap about no 360's working, because very few of them actually don't. 70% my ***. Xbox.com, Gamefaqs.com, Modojo.com, IGN.com, go to any forum, and tell me how many people are having 360 problems. People who are making up stories like "My 360 caught on fire" don't count.

But I don't see why people are complaining about PD0 so much. The game looks great, but it has a pretty cartoony feel overall. I don't see it as being "too realistic" like Quake 4 or something might be. I definatly see what you're saying about the graphics, but I don't think PD0 is a very good example.
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/015/015335/img_3233506.html

And how about Kameo? Proof that games can still look absoloutly beautiful, but not have to be blindingly realistic.
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/490/490038/img_3071862.html

 

[TyraniRay]

Some games are good with graphics. Some aren't and may even sell less because it was focused on graphics. Mario will sell as long as Nintendo exists, you know why? Because all his games are gameplay based, hell, he looks more realistic in a game not based around him (although that game defintely didn't sacrafice gameplay). My point is, most truly good games/franchises will sell (apart from rabid fanboys and girls) because they play the best. Pokemon has pathetic graphics, yet it still is still one of the most popular games in the world, just because of how it plays.

Then there are some games that require the graphics (although current gen graphics will suffice) to get the right feel from the game. Can you imagine Splinter Cell with Sam looking like an anime character? Wouldn't be the same wouldn't it? Realistic racing games like GT and Forza, and games like GTA and Getaway also need this. Most first person shooters require it to a point that was reached this gen.

Sadly, there are some people who fail to understand this, and this ruins videogames. As a result, more and more games are being focused towards graphics and less towards gameplay. My point is, I'm choosing my next-gen system based on gameplay in mind. In case it isn't blind as day to you, it's obviously the Revolution. Playing games with a much more freehand syle will open up countless new games, and add to old favourites. Imagine playing a RTS like Age off Empires by just pointing at the screen and pressing a button or two. Or playing Metroid Prime with a much easier to use and being away from an unmovable keyboard or the limited dual analog sticks. I'm going overboard here so I better calm down.

There is a limit to graphics, and it's drawing ever closer. We have focus on the more important aspects before it gets here or no one will care about new consoles, as they're only marginally better than their predesesor graphics-wise. Then the whole industry could collapse. Not likely, but it's possible.

Ok, I gotta go now, 'cause my friends over and he's bugging me about his car's suspension.

 

[DJ-Will]

HELLO!! The SIMPSONS is watched by everyone and it is ANIMATED.

But The Simpsons doesn't give the idea that it's geared to 6-year old kids over teenagers. Look at all the content: drugs, profanity, sex, gore (mostly Halloween specials).

 

[Paradox]

And how about Kameo? Proof that games can still look absoloutly beautiful, but not have to be blindingly realistic.
http://media.xbox360.ign.com/media/490/490038/img_3071862.html

Kameo, although some parts look brilliant, others like some of the rock textures just look below current gen standard, although that's probably down to the lazy programming.

I still can't see how the 360 can do HD, I'm sure the transfer rate of DVD's isn't quick enough

 

[ShiningClefairy]

I find it funny since you enjoy The Sims a lot and that's more of a simulation of real life than anything else in the world (And Singles, if you dig the sex).

Yeah, good point, but remember how I said that I don't give a flying FLEEP whether I'm playing it on a Radeon Xpress 200 or a Geforce 7800 GTX? Graphics are the point of this thread. Not guns. Not drugs. Not profanity. Not sex. The whole point is the graphics, not the maturity level. I have no clue how everyone wandered into that discussion.

The outdated graphics of The Sims 2 are constant proof that you're playing a game and not watching a controllable movie. Video games are starting to look less and less like video games every generation.

Well, I suppose the real reason I'm complaining is not because the graphics are too good, but because games are looking the way they aren't supposed to. Wind Waker looked like a cartoon, when it was supposed to look like a mystic quest, like the way Twilight Princess looks. Cel-shading did work wonderfully in Tales of Symphonia, because it's an anime-style game.

Video games are video games. Movies are movies. Video games should not look like movies. Video games should not feel like movies. They better not forget that.