Support NeoGAF

[Azelover]

Diminishing returns is a futile and pathetic hope of Nintendo's and nothing more; it is in no way real or happening at all. Physics and animation are growing more important in the scope of visuals (which is why screenshots are becoming less and less indicative of a game), but there are still many technical advancements/improvements to come. The very idea of it actually frustrates me to quite a degree.

If you think cel-shaded games look as good as they will ever already, take a look at Rogue Galaxy's cinemas. MGS4, GoW and Warhawk show how much advancement there still is in the realism category, and the PS3 Tekken tech demo shows how much better fighters can and will look (though I won't be surprised if the first PS3 Tekken doesn't quite look that good, but it will eventually on the PS3 I'm betting).

Bottom line, anyone who believes in diminishing returns lacks true artistic and technical vision. Others are quietly building games that will continue to disprove the notion for years to come. Until I get Episode III-esque CG real time in my games, diminishing returns is a misnomer. We have such a long way to go it isn't even funny.

I agree with what you said, except for the first line. Obviously diminishing returns is a futile and pathetic hope of all game publishers who wish to make more profit and spend less money on the production, but I don't think Nintendo ever really talked about diminishing returns directly. If I'm not mistaken that has come from other developers in the industry long before Nintendo ever started talking about their next-gen strategy. From what I understand their "graphics won't sell games anymore" statements are market-driven, but other than that I agree with everything you said.

 

[Andrew2]

I agree that CG has a long way to go in rendering stuff realistically that are supposed to be in the real world, but that just isn't the case for everything

Ever heard of the movie Sky Captain? Guess what, but a majority of that film was digital props and digital actors. Same can said about Spider-Man 2 --- in alot of the complex scenes, you were seeing nothing but a digital version of Alfred Molina. No stunt double, camera tricks or etc, just a digital version of him

What both of those exsamples say? CG doesn't have a long to go in rendering stuff realtistically. In fact, people like Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn or Marylin Monore who have been long dead could be brought back from the dead in the form of digital versions to act in new roles.

 

[ziran]

i think there are many variables in this argument, including graphics, a.i. and audience.

graphics and a.i. have a while to go before they reach reality, but let's face it, this will never happen in videogames, the audience to justify a budget to create such a game isn't there and developers aren't capable of doing it.

then there's audience. the hardcore will never see diminishing returns (and nintendo has openly said to ms and sony, you can have this audience, we're not interested in trying to please them because we see it as futile).

however, imo, with regard to the majority of gamers, graphics, a.i., etc are reaching dimishing returns. it's clear many of them aren't interested in what the hardcore deem as essential. look at the declining sales worldwide. the hardcore see's a game and says 'wow, this is amazing, it's so much better than the last game' but a casual gamer sees it and thinks 'it's similar to the last game and i've played that before'.

also with a.i. the things that matter to the hardcore are not the most important thing to the masses. in fact the closer developers try to get to 'real' the further from reality the game seems. take rag doll physics. this, more advanced, technique makes the character look nothing like real, but like a fake doll falling. like a stunt on the a team, it draws attention to the fact this isn't real.

 

[Grug]

I think alot of people are thinking of diminishing returns in a purely technological sense.

A major issue (and certainly what Nintendo is trying to say) is that there is an economic aspect as well.

It is going to get to the point where the development costs to continue driving graphics technology further and reap the associated rewards becomes no longer feasible in videogame development economies of scale.

The increase in Xbox 360 game prices is just the beginning.

There are a number of prospective theories to ease the pressure on game development costs, Nintendos approach with Revolution is one of them, some other solutions are a little disturbing (advertising for example). The fact remains that something has to give.

To dismiss "diminishing returns" as Nintendo clap-trap is a little short-sighted, and it reminds me a little of people who dismiss "peak oil" as a mere left wing doomsday theory.

 

[Grug]

In fact, it was quite apt for me to mention the peak oil theory as it is essentially based upon diminishing returns itself.

Oil harvesting is only viable when the value of the oil harvested is greater than the energy invested in extracting it.

It will get to a point in videogame development where the costs (in man power and technology) to hit higher peaks in graphical quality in games will exceed the benefits in doing so.

That is why energy companies are now looking at alternative energy sources, and why some game developers and publishers (yes, including Nintendo) are looking at alternative game design philosophies.

 

[Rlan]

Sonic can get HUGE updates to his character model, ingame at least. Sonic Heroes and Shadow the Hedgehog, and Sonic Riders have, by todays standards, basic 3D models.

Just look at some of the CG that was being pushed out for Shadow and Sonic Riders:

Shadow CG Artwork

Compilation of Rider's footage, with in-game and CG cutscenes.

If they could make the games look like the CG, I'd be all for it.

 

[MrSardonic]

I'm more interested in seeing natural movement become widespread in videogames. There has been a big emphasis on realistic models, lighting etc...but I have yet to see really natural looking movement animated in games. Personally, I think this and game-world physics are a larger barrier to immersion/realism and hope that some development teams remedy this.

 

[SolidSnakex]

however, imo, with regard to the majority of gamers, graphics, a.i., etc are reaching dimishing returns. it's clear many of them aren't interested in what the hardcore deem as essential. look at the declining sales worldwide. the hardcore see's a game and says 'wow, this is amazing, it's so much better than the last game' but a casual gamer sees it and thinks 'it's similar to the last game and i've played that before'.

Next gen hasn't even started really so I don't see how you can come to that. There's nothing really now coming out on current gen consoles that's drastically better looking than anything else released on them. Once next gen really starts and there's not pick up in sales, then you might have a point in the area of the majority of gamers not caring about the stuff you mentioned.

 

[ziran]

Next gen hasn't even started really so I don't see how you can come to that. There's nothing really now coming out on current gen consoles that's drastically better looking than anything else released on them. Once next gen really starts and there's not pick up in sales, then you might have a point in the area of the majority of gamers not caring about the stuff you mentioned.

i'm talking about this gen (ps2, gc, xbox).

the scenario i painted has happened, so imo it will only get worse next gen.

 

[SolidSnakex]

the scenario i painted has happened, so imo it will only get worse next gen.

The scenario you painted always happens. There's a decline at the end of each generation. It's not an indication of what's going to happen in the next generation though.

 

[norinrad21]

The main hurdle is manpower. An 800 person team could "fill" next-gen content. A 50 person team will struggle.

Which is why we need quick,short and fun games that could be made by 9 people, shallow i know but what can you do? we are all growing up and some of us don't have much free time like we did in the early years.

 

[Grug]

Which is why we need quick,short and fun games that could be made by 9 people, shallow i know but what can you do? we are all growing up and some of us don't have much free time like we did in the early years.

Agreed, I'd happily pay $30 for a 6-8 hour platformer with fun play mechanics and no annoying fetch quests.

I think as development costs rise there will be a market for affordable priced, simpler games.

 

[ziran]

There's a decline at the end of each generation.

i agree.

It's not an indication of what's going to happen in the next generation though.

i'm talking about this gen compared to last gen, overall.

zelda ww sold less than oot, mgs3 sold less than 2 which sold less than 1. tony hawk this gen has sold less than last gen, so has tomb raider, tekken, mario, virtua fighter, final fantasy, res evil, driver, syphon filter, ace combat, platformers across the board, etc, etc.

edit - the cost of developing these games is skyrocketting next gen but as their graphics and a.i. improve it seems less and less people are interested in playing them. the improvements that are turning on the developers and hardcore are often having little effect on the majority of gamers.

 

[the androgyne]

What i see is people's expectations going UP and tangible improvements going down.

10 years ago, would we be happy to see VF5 or DOA4 level graphics? Hell yeah! But now every second post is 'oh this is only a BIT better, or 'this looks like absolute toss because it doesn't have self shadowing'.

I'd hate to be a developer reading some of this stuff; can you imagine the effort that goes into these things? And then they have to read some loser on a forum dissing it because of the uncanny valley effect.

 

[gofreak]

We've not hit a ceiling at all in terms of realtime rendering quality, but I think we have hit a point where "just" rendering power, the preserve of the GPU, is not enough. Bind that rendering power with the science and art of natural motion, and then you'll see bigger leaps still, leaps that are more appreciable more casually. Without that, in fact, purely better rendering quality is somewhat pointless IMO. Could you imagine having the ability to perfectly render truly photorealistic scenes - but once you stopped looking at screenshots and hit "play", everything just fell apart?

Up until now, we've neither been able to, or really needed to, focus on behaviour and motion and its role in the visual presentation of a game, but I think that's going to change thankfully, with the coming generation.

I don't think it's coincidence that the game which IMO has paid most attention to this is also the one that's probably had the greatest visual impact of all the next-gen games shown to date (and required you watch it in motion).

 

[marc^o^]

Would you buy each year tickets to go and see the same movie, even if it is remastered? Not so sure. Though it's what most developpers are proposing us :-/ Some franchises have strong foundations and will still translate well next gen. But most of the games will propose the same gameplay mechanics than we saw back in the Playstation days, and they will feel old, no matter how beautiful they look.

 

[madara]

Aye, we're not anywhere close to top notch hand drawn disney/ ghibi animation or even bookcovers like parkingson did. Then after that I suppose it would be using that but in true 3d world, holographic like and that should take few decades to happen/perfect.

 

[SolidSnakex]

i'm talking about this gen compared to last gen, overall.

zelda ww sold less than oot, mgs3 sold less than 2 which sold less than 1. tony hawk this gen has sold less than last gen, so has tomb raider, tekken, mario, virtua fighter, final fantasy, res evil, driver, syphon filter, ace combat, platformers across the board, etc, etc.

New series have popped up this gen (much like they do every gen) so I don't think its too big of a deal. And in alot of cases with the series you mentioned, they still sell extremely well.

 

[BlueTsunami]

Would you buy each year tickets to go and see the same movie, even if it is remastered?

Your argument would be correct if we had Final Fantasy 7 released every generation with updated visuals (I'm talking about the exact same characters and plot and gameplay).

We don't

We get different games with different stories, with variations of gameplay. I love that your argument is that games from the Playstation to the Xbox are the same games but remastered.

 

[Beowvlf]

If the notion of 'diminishing returns' has to deal with the economic scale of game creation, then I'll simply reference films. The movie industry experienced this very same predicament many years ago, and yet with a box office that brings in less revenue than gaming each year in North America, films are routinely being made with $100+ million dollars budgets, which I'm betting close to triples the most expensive games ever produced.

How is this financially possible? The market has matured and expanded to allow for the largest percentage of consumers willing to buy it's products. The video game industry needs to mature big time to expand to the levels necessary to support this.

We need actual storylines, broad, accessible themes and intelligent gaming to bring in the last portion of gamers. Gaming will never achieve the level of penetration that films will, because they require interaction, and many people simply don't want to play games. But I am of the very, very strong belief that returning to simplistic, accessible method of gaming is not the way to increase the market. Nintendo's way of thinking does nothing but bring back a host of gamers who left the industry due to increasing difficulty and complexity.

Now don't get me wrong, this is needed, and I'll be glad to see Nintendo occupy this niche demographic on their own, but it isn't the path to true mainstream penetration. We need designers with vision, we need a journalistic entity that actually treats gaming as a viable artform, and don't gush over the latest game from x developer because they've met some of them at E3 and had a couple beers. As much as I hate to do this because I disagree with him so much, he is right in this point; as Ebert said, we need the gaming equivalents to Metropolis, The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. And that doesn't require millions of dollars. Visuals in this next gen are at the levels needed for even the most unlikely gamer to take notice and respect.

The technological levels of this industry are jumping too far ahead of the creative though, and as I wished that this gen would continue for another 2-3 years before the next, that obviously cannot happen now. True creativity in gaming is much more likely and able to happen in the latter half of a console cycle, where development costs on the platform have dropped significantly. This upcoming gen needs to last 10 years at the minimum before new machines are introduced, to allow the creative minds of our time to step up and deliver intelligent and thought-provoking narratives, coupled with the true innovation of gaming (interactivity), that will get the world talking.

People need to stop bitching that a game like SotC runs at 25FPS occasionally instead of a rock solid 30, or that the camera can be wonky at times, and focus on the artistry. Just because we move in the game, doesn't mean the technical needs to account for 90% of our attention. Do we bitch about the texture depth of special effects in films? No, it's either great, decent or shit. Then we move on to what matters; the story, the characters, how it happened, why it happened, etc. Sure, technological errors in games can ruin the key aspect of the medium, but for games like SotC that rise above any nigglings, why harp? Interactivity doesn't have to be the only important aspect of gaming.

My mind is all jumbled so the rest of my thoughts are a mess, so I'll just end this mini rant/post before it gets any more incoherent.

 

[ziran]

If the notion of 'diminishing returns' has to deal with the economic scale of game creation, then I'll simply reference films. The movie industry experienced this very same predicament many years ago, and yet with a box office that brings in less revenue than gaming each year in North America, films are routinely being made with $100+ million dollars budgets, which I'm betting close to triples the most expensive games ever produced.

How is this financially possible? The market has matured and expanded to allow for the largest percentage of consumers willing to buy it's products. The video game industry needs to mature big time to expand to the levels necessary to support this.

We need actual storylines, broad, accessible themes and intelligent gaming to bring in the last portion of gamers. Gaming will never achieve the level of penetration that films will, because they require interaction, and many people simply don't want to play games. But I am of the very, very strong belief that returning to simplistic, accessible method of gaming is not the way to increase the market. Nintendo's way of thinking does nothing but bring back a host of gamers who left the industry due to increasing difficulty and complexity.

Now don't get me wrong, this is needed, and I'll be glad to see Nintendo occupy this niche demographic on their own, but it isn't the path to true mainstream penetration. We need designers with vision, we need a journalistic entity that actually treats gaming as a viable artform, and don't gush over the latest game from x developer because they've met some of them at E3 and had a couple beers. As much as I hate to do this because I disagree with him so much, he is right in this point; as Ebert said, we need the gaming equivalents to Metropolis, The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. And that doesn't require millions of dollars. Visuals in this next gen are at the levels needed for even the most unlikely gamer to take notice and respect.

The technological levels of this industry are jumping too far ahead of the creative though, and as I wished that this gen would continue for another 2-3 years before the next, that obviously cannot happen now. True creativity in gaming is much more likely and able to happen in the latter half of a console cycle, where development costs on the platform have dropped significantly. This upcoming gen needs to last 10 years at the minimum before new machines are introduced, to allow the creative minds of our time to step up and deliver intelligent and thought-provoking narratives, coupled with the true innovation of gaming (interactivity), that will get the world talking.

People need to stop bitching that a game like SotC runs at 25FPS occasionally instead of a rock solid 30, or that the camera can be wonky at times, and focus on the artistry. Just because we move in the game, doesn't mean the technical needs to account for 90% of our attention. Do we bitch about the texture depth of special effects in films? No, it's either great, decent or shit. Then we move on to what matters; the story, the characters, how it happened, why it happened, etc. Sure, technological errors in games can ruin the key aspect of the medium, but for games like SotC that rise above any nigglings, why harp? Interactivity doesn't have to be the only important aspect of gaming.

My mind is all jumbled so the rest of my thoughts are a mess, so I'll just end this mini rant/post before it gets any more incoherent.

imo the solution you've suggested won't work. in fact i think it's part of the reason why current videogame sales are declining and why they will continue to decline next gen.

(the movie industry earns a relatively small amount of its profit from a film through box office receipts - around 1/6th, the rest is from merchandising, advertising, dvd sales, tv rights, rental, etc, that's why budgets can be so high. video games only have sellthrough (and a little through rental))

 

[jett]

Ever heard of the movie Sky Captain? Guess what, but a majority of that film was digital props and digital actors. Same can said about Spider-Man 2 --- in alot of the complex scenes, you were seeing nothing but a digital version of Alfred Molina. No stunt double, camera tricks or etc, just a digital version of him

What both of those exsamples say? CG doesn't have a long to go in rendering stuff realtistically. In fact, people like Grace Kelly, Audrey Hepburn or Marylin Monore who have been long dead could be brought back from the dead in the form of digital versions to act in new roles.

The digital doubles in SM2 are garbage.

 

[Beowvlf]

(the movie industry earns a relatively small amount of its profit from a film through box office receipts - around 1/6th, the rest is from merchandising, advertising, dvd sales, tv rights, rental, etc, that's why budgets can be so high. video games only have sellthrough (and rental))

Oh, this is a good point that I forgot to mention. The video game industry needs to expand how they sell their products. Why is dot.hack not being offered as a box set of all 4 games for $39-49US right now? Why aren't more games being bundled and rereleased ala the Resident Evil's on the Cube? Why do game publishers/developers feel all games need to be at least 8-10 hours long and sell for $40-50? Why not 2-3 hours long that sell for $20-25 at release?

Why is old content abandoned? Where are my rereleased 3 pack PSone games for $15?

The Greatest Hits lineup (which is IMO one of the best ideas this industry has had in a long, long time; kudos to Sony for that) needs to improved and expanded. Waiting 9-12 months before releasing titles as a part of the GH lineup is too long.

Why aren't more games being packaged as premium/special/limited editions for $10-15 more for us hardcore gamers? And make those editions worthwhile!

Episodic content is a huge asset, but only if it's used to subsidize costs and increase value, not to rip off consumers. Instead of charging 50+10+10+10 for content that shoud've been included at the outset, do 30+10+10+10. If you give consumers the opportunity to spread out their spending, I fully believe they will jump at the chance even if it means they spend $10 more at the end, so long as that end result is still a decent value.

 

[elostyle]

If the notion of 'diminishing returns' has to deal with the economic scale of game creation, then I'll simply reference films. The movie industry experienced this very same predicament many years ago, and yet with a box office that brings in less revenue than gaming each year in North America, films are routinely being made with $100+ million dollars budgets, which I'm betting close to triples the most expensive games ever produced.

How is this financially possible? The market has matured and expanded to allow for the largest percentage of consumers willing to buy it's products. The video game industry needs to mature big time to expand to the levels necessary to support this.

It's financially possible because there are far less movies released than games. So what you want is for the industry to mature into few publishers and few blockbuster releases? No thanks.

We need actual storylines, broad, accessible themes and intelligent gaming to bring in the last portion of gamers. Gaming will never achieve the level of penetration that films will, because they require interaction, and many people simply don't want to play games. But I am of the very, very strong belief that returning to simplistic, accessible method of gaming is not the way to increase the market. Nintendo's way of thinking does nothing but bring back a host of gamers who left the industry due to increasing difficulty and complexity.

You're a bit all over the place here. What the industry needs to gather new players are games without or with very little written story. If you want people to play games you can't show them a 15 minute cutscene and then expect them to work for progress. If you start with a movie then they expect to watch a movie. The cutscene-gameplay-cutscene-gameplay type of game only really appeals to a narrow demoographic. People want to play games but don't want to play game movie hybrids. All the immensly popular online flash and shareware games show this. All the new recent nintendo successes don't have any storylines - which in a way makes them more game'ish than many rollercoaster ride game/movie hybrids on consoles but just keep calling them non-games for all I care.

Now don't get me wrong, this is needed, and I'll be glad to see Nintendo occupy this niche demographic on their own, but it isn't the path to true mainstream penetration.

It is. See above.

We need designers with vision, we need a journalistic entity that actually treats gaming as a viable artform, and don't gush over the latest game from x developer because they've met some of them at E3 and had a couple beers. As much as I hate to do this because I disagree with him so much, he is right in this point; as Ebert said, we need the gaming equivalents to Metropolis, The Seven Samurai and Schindler's List. And that doesn't require millions of dollars. Visuals in this next gen are at the levels needed for even the most unlikely gamer to take notice and respect.

I think your still on the wrong path. We need game designers with technical exellence in game mechanics and not movie director wannabes. Game designers that know the limit of their platforms and tailor gameplay concepts towards them first before creating magnificent worlds in their heads that the platform can't do convincingly.

The technological levels of this industry are jumping too far ahead of the creative though, and as I wished that this gen would continue for another 2-3 years before the next, that obviously cannot happen now. True creativity in gaming is much more likely and able to happen in the latter half of a console cycle, where development costs on the platform have dropped significantly. This upcoming gen needs to last 10 years at the minimum before new machines are introduced, to allow the creative minds of our time to step up and deliver intelligent and thought-provoking narratives, coupled with the true innovation of gaming (interactivity), that will get the world talking.

It is quite the opposite. Game designers still create worlds in their heads that hardly work on current game machines. Not only from a technical level but also from how game mechanics are realized.

People need to stop bitching that a game like SotC runs at 25FPS occasionally instead of a rock solid 30, or that the camera can be wonky at times, and focus on the artistry. Just because we move in the game, doesn't mean the technical needs to account for 90% of our attention. Do we bitch about the texture depth of special effects in films? No, it's either great, decent or shit. Then we move on to what matters; the story, the characters, how it happened, why it happened, etc. Sure, technological errors in games can ruin the key aspect of the medium, but for games like SotC that rise above any nigglings, why harp? Interactivity doesn't have to be the only important aspect of gaming.

This is games, not movies. There is control and gameplay foremost with (hopefully) working mechanics. Unfortunately designers are too cought up in visions of worlds without actually thinking about if it would work as a game. You have a misconception of gaming art here. There is visual art and there is the art of game mechanics. Chess is obviously a game of art and so is tetris and starcraft. Gaming already has its artistics highlight, most people just look at the wrong parts.

 

[Flachmatuch]

I think most of the mass produced Hollywood movies are garbage - exactly because of the risks they don't take with that kind of mone at stake. Nothing of artistic value will ever come out of a $100m movie (maybe if it's one person's movie, like Schindler's List, but even that movie is incomparable to Seven Samurai or Metropolis in terms of artistic effect and creativity) - it will come from independent sources. Seems like Microsoft and Nintendo think similarly, especially MS, with XNA and XBLA. I really expect great things from XBLA, I think MS could practically own the independent game market with Live Arcade.

 

[Ranger X]

I don't really agree with the thread starter. There's alot of room for improvement. Even for cartoonish graphics.
Dead or Alive can look better and of course the envirronnements, physics, interaction counts. It's not something seperated from the graphics, it's just part of it, like the characters. Saying that DOA can't really get better because of the characters looking so good is taking into account just a part of the visuals of the game.
Diminishing returns is not reached with screenshots either. Obviously screenshot won't do as much justice to games as they did before but still, when i see a picture of Toy Story, i can automatically tell it's way beyond anything i've seen on any videogame...

 

[ziran]

I think most of the mass produced Hollywood movies are garbage - exactly because of the risks they don't take with that kind of mone at stake. Nothing of artistic value will ever come out of a $100m movie (maybe if it's one person's movie, like Schindler's List, but even that movie is incomparable to Seven Samurai or Metropolis in terms of artistic effect and creativity) - it will come from independent sources. Seems like Microsoft and Nintendo think similarly, especially MS, with XNA and XBLA. I really expect great things from XBLA, I think MS could practically own the independent game market with Live Arcade.

i understand your point but seven samurai and schindler's list were big budget studio movies made to appeal to the masses, and they did. certainly with seven samurai it's only seen as an art film today, but at the time, especially in japan, it was a main stream movie. so it's difficult to gauge what videogames made today will be seen as 'art', in fifty years time.

imo profit will always be at the root of every creative industry, so it's up to talented creators to work within the system to deliver something interesting.

 

[Beowvlf]

It's financially possible because there are far less movies released than games. So what you want is for the industry to mature into few publishers and few blockbuster releases? No thanks.

Are you serious? There are over 17,000 films credited as 2005 releases according to imdb.com. Even cutting that number in half totally blows away the number of games released this year, on all platforms combined.

You're a bit all over the place here. What the industry needs to gather new players are games without or with very little written story. If you want people to play games you can't show them a 15 minute cutscene and then expect them to work for progress. If you start with a movie then they expect to watch a movie. The cutscene-gameplay-cutscene-gameplay type of game only really appeals to a narrow demoographic. People want to play games but don't want to play game movie hybrids. All the immensly popular online flash and shareware games show this. All the new recent nintendo successes don't have any storylines - which in a way makes them more game'ish than many rollercoaster ride game/movie hybrids on consoles but just keep calling them non-games for all I care.

But this won't work, because it didn't work in the past. All Nintendo is going to do is attract people who have stopped gaming, like young girls with Nintendogs/Animal Crossing. You think even 50% of those girls who got the DS + game for Christmas are ever going to buy another DS game again? I'm willing to bet they won't. The industry massively expanded when the scenerio I described began, ie. the PSone era. The problem is that expansion will now stagnate until the content matures even more, to levels seen in film and literature.

I think your still on the wrong path. We need game designers with technical exellence in game mechanics and not movie director wannabes. Game designers that know the limit of their platforms and tailor gameplay concepts towards them first before creating magnificent worlds in their heads that the platform can't do convincingly.

I am of the opinion that this will lead and cement the video game industry firmly into a niche market that will continue to shrink when innovation in gameplay becomes no more than a gimmick that hasn't been done before.

This is games, not movies. There is control and gameplay foremost with (hopefully) working mechanics. Unfortunately designers are too cought up in visions of worlds without actually thinking about if it would work as a game. You have a misconception of gaming art here. There is visual art and there is the art of game mechanics. Chess is obviously a game of art and so is tetris and starcraft. Gaming already has its artistics highlight, most people just look at the wrong parts.

I believe that gaming should focus not on gameplay concepts that haven't been done before, but gameplay experiences that haven't been experienced before.

This discussion is quite futile though, because you and I rest in the polar opposites of the gaming mentality, evidenced by your ardent love of the DS, and my preference of the more technologically advanced devices.

 

[Taker666]

All Nintendo is going to do is attract people who have stopped gaming, like young girls with Nintendogs/Animal Crossing. You think even 50% of those girls who got the DS + game for Christmas are ever going to buy another DS game again? I'm willing to bet they won't. .

What about Nintendogs 2, Nintendocats and Tamagotchi?

Of course then 3rd parties might get in on the act and start with "My Pet Spongebob", "My pet Hedwig/Dobby", "Virtual Furby" .

They'll buy more software, if you make software that appeals to them.

 

[elostyle]

Are you serious? There are over 17,000 films credited as 2005 releases according to imdb.com. Even cutting that number in half totally blows away the number of games released this year, on all platforms combined.

I meant cinematic releases.

But this won't work, because it didn't work in the past. All Nintendo is going to do is attract people who have stopped gaming, like young girls with Nintendogs/Animal Crossing. You think even 50% of those girls who got the DS + game for Christmas are ever going to buy another DS game again? I'm willing to bet they won't. The industry massively expanded when the scenerio I described began, ie. the PSone era. The problem is that expansion will now stagnate until the content matures even more, to levels seen in film and literature.

I am of the opinion that this will lead and cement the video game industry firmly into a niche market that will continue to shrink when innovation in gameplay becomes no more than a gimmick that hasn't been done before.

I believe that gaming should focus not on gameplay concepts that haven't been done before, but gameplay experiences that haven't been experienced before.

I'm not following, when did this not work in the past? The PS era was a logical extension of the 16bit era if you ask me. Obviously it attracted more people because more concepts were possible on it. This thread is about a saturation point, the whole argument is that it won't work any longer. Sure, content may mature, but the structure of current games will persist. It's not that much the content that is unappealing, it is the cutscene/gameplay structure. Plus that you now have to use many more buttons and moves to do basically the same as previously with less. This is the nintendo argument. It is not so much that games are to complicated but that they became more complicated to control without much reason for it. I'm feeling this myself, now I'm put in game worlds with much more detail and have more moves at my disposal but the level of interactivity hasn't really gone up much at all. MGS feels like a souped up pacman at times.

I'm a tech enthusiast myself but my problem is that the mechanics game designers put into the complex worlds they create are archaic and unneccessarily hard to control which makes it feel more out of place the more the conceptual detail increases. I love complex games but it needs to work as a whole.

 

[Beowvlf]

What about Nintendogs 2, Nintendocats and Tamagotchi?

Of course then 3rd parties might get in on the act and start with "My Pet Spongebob", "My pet Hedwig/Dobby", "Virtual Furby" .

They'll buy more software, if you make software that appeals to them.

And this is precisely my point. This isn't expanding the market at all, this is simply throwing the same concept at them over and over until it fades. And if my 13 year old daughter is any indication, a sequel to Nintendogs wouldn't interest her, as after a month with the original she was pretty much tired of it.

 

[Deku]

Wow, some people with their blinders on have completely missed the point as expected.

Diminishing returns by definition means there are still returns, so it is NOT about not seeing improvements in graphics or AI but rather, its a point where you put a ton of resources into a project and only see marginal improvement.

The question is whether developers want to spent 5-6 million dollars per game to make exactly the same game they've been making in the past five years with more than half the budget going into things that either people don't notice, or doesn't make or break a game.

In that sense, yes, diminishing returns is a very real concern for developers and as the shitty Xbox 360 launch game has shown, it's a very real problem too.

 

[BlueTsunami]

In that sense, yes, diminishing returns is a very real concern for developers and as the shitty Xbox 360 launch game has shown, it's a very real problem too.

With that, your argument is null. Do you even have a clue as to what issues developers go through and the legistical and technical reasons for the semi-lackluster 360 launch?

Its not about fricken deminishing returns :lol

 

[SolidSnakex]

The question is whether developers want to spent 5-6 million dollars per game to make exactly the same game they've been making in the past five years with more than half the budget going into things that either people don't notice, or doesn't make or break a game.

What exactly are those things that people won't notice? I hope you aren't talking about physics or AI which could make a giant difference in games if done right next gen. It's something everyone will notice.

 

[Link]

And this is precisely my point. This isn't expanding the market at all, this is simply throwing the same concept at them over and over until it fades. And if my 13 year old daughter is any indication, a sequel to Nintendogs wouldn't interest her, as after a month with the original she was pretty much tired of it.

Well, I'm sure the brainwashing contributed to that.

 

[SomeDude]

People say this shit at the start of every gen.

 

[The Take Out Bandit]

I still don't have my Koei developed free roaming beat'em up that looks exactly like a battle scene in Lord of the Rings or Kingdom of Heaven. So go stick this diminishing returns crap in your pipe and smoke it.

 

[Beowvlf]

I meant cinematic releases.

That's why I said "Even cutting that number in half totally blows away the number of games released this year, on all platforms combined.". And imdb.com doesn't even include every foreign release. Trust me elo, cinematic releases worldwide completely destroy game releases worldwide by such a huge margin the comparison shouldn't even be made.

I'm not following, when did this not work in the past? The PS era was a logical extension of the 16bit era if you ask me.

Bullshit. The N64 was the extension to the 16bit era; the PSone took the market in a different direction. Not recognizing this is ridiculously underplaying all that Sony has done, and to simply state they did nothing but continue what Nintendo began is pretty fucking lame.

Obviously it attracted more people because more concepts were possible on it. This thread is about a saturation point, the whole argument is that it won't work any longer. Sure, content may mature, but the structure of current games will persist. It's not that much the content that is unappealing, it is the cutscene/gameplay structure. Plus that you now have to use many more buttons and moves to do basically the same as previously with less. This is the nintendo argument.

Yeah, and it's nothing but a company desperate to find it's market again. It's so pathetic that some are all lining up with Nintendo as if they're some 'back to basics of true gaming' prophet. 'Structure of current games will persist'? WTF? Says who? You just stated that the PSone attracted more people because it enabled new concepts in gaming, yet all of sudden this will stop? This is the ridiculousness and PR bullshiting of Nintendo. And are you seriously telling me the cutscene/gameplay concept is unappealing? Stories should be abolished from gaming? Then welcome back the limited userbase of the NES. The evolution of gaming is due in great part to the addition of narrative, and the attempt to provide a fuller experience.

Nintendo is stuck in 3rd place because they won't wake the fuck up and expand their business. With the Rev at least they're admitting to purposely relegating themselves in that niche, but all the shit they've said before has always screamed of a company too stubborn to grow. The Revmote will bring back some gamers (though who's to say it'll keep them), but I feel it may also alienate a portion that is now greater in number than the whole of the userbase of the 8bit/16bit eras.

It is not so much that games are to complicated but that they became more complicated to control without much reason for it. I'm feeling this myself, now I'm put in game worlds with much more detail and have more moves at my disposal but the level of interactivity hasn't really gone up much at all. MGS feels like a souped up pacman at times.

But isn't this the opposite of what you're arguing? Isn't this what you argue Nintendo wants, and that what Rev believers see the machine providing? Gaming experiences equivalent to other systems yet with uber innovative and super duper simplistic controls? To me, this is the same as saying one prefers kid's films, because adult content contains too much unnecessary (to them) character development and complex (to them) themes. It's a preference, nothing more, and one I'm very confident is in the minority of gamers.

The question is whether developers want to spent 5-6 million dollars per game to make exactly the same game they've been making in the past five years with more than half the budget going into things that either people don't notice, or doesn't make or break a game.

This is more ridiculous BS. 'Don't/won't notice'? Fuck that. Gaming technology has a long way to go, bottom line. I agree with Nintendo that it shouldn't be the sole focus, but that's simply their PR crap that's trying to make us think that's all MS and Sony care about. They don't; they're embracing both. Look at MS with XBLA, or Sony with the EyeToy.

Meanwhile, Nintendo is completely abandoning improving technology with the Rev, and telling me visuals/physics/A.I is good enough right now. I say fuck no it isn't.

 

[Y2Kev]

This thread freaking reeks of "Nintendo is the savior" vibe.

 

[Beowvlf]

Well, I'm sure the brainwashing contributed to that.

Hysterical. What do you expect? It's a fucking concept from 1995 gussied up with puppies and a few expanded features. Trust me, games like Nintendogs are not going to bring Nintendo back to the top.

 

[Taker666]

And this is precisely my point. This isn't expanding the market at all, this is simply throwing the same concept at them over and over until it fades. And if my 13 year old daughter is any indication, a sequel to Nintendogs wouldn't interest her, as after a month with the original she was pretty much tired of it.

What is expanding the market then?

You create something to bring in new customers (which Nintendogs and Brain training have) ..then what?

You try and keep as many as possible by hoping they will like other new titles you are creating or by attempting to keep them with follow ups to the software that attracted them in the first place.

Lets say Nintendo have attracted 1 million brand new consumers with Nintendogs/Brain training. Even if 90% of them give up on gaming again within 5 years then you have still expanded the market if the remaining 10% stay.

You release software to attract new customers, you try an keep as many as possible and every person you keep means an expanded market.

 

[marc^o^]

Trust me, games like Nintendogs are not going to bring Nintendo back to the top.

You're cute but I will not trust you. Games like Nintendogs, Animal Crossing, Brain Training, Kirby, etc. are appealing to anyone, except to some teenagers who need "mature" games because they are ashamed of their child side.

 

[BlueTsunami]

This whole deminishing returns argument strikes me as more of an argument for handhelds for some reason....

>.>

 

[Link]

This thread freaking reeks of "Nintendo is the savior" vibe.

Actually, it didn't reek of anything like that until the usual accusers found their way in.

 

[Beowvlf]

What is expanding the market then?

You create something to bring in new customers (which Nintendogs and Brain training have) ..then what?

You try and keep as many as possible by hoping they will like other new titles you are creating or by attempting to keep them with follow ups to the software that attracted them in the first place.

Lets say Nintendo have attracted 1 million brand new consumers with Nintendogs/Brain training. Even if 90% of them give up on gaming again within 5 years then you have still expanded the market if the remaining 10% stay.

You release software to attract new customers, you try an keep as many as possible and every person you keep means an expanded market.

I used the word 'expanding' a bit too loosely. Brain Training and Nintendogs haven't expanded the market IMO, and by that I mean bring in new gamers. They've brought back old gamers, and it's very questionable how much it's 'brought them back'.

And as the shift from Nintendo consoles to PlayStation consoles showed, I don't believe simplistic gaming can maintain a consumer base. The industry has neglected it a bit, but eventually everyone wants more. Which is why it's very possible that the gamers brought back by Nintendogs or Brain Training may eventually look elsewhere, because Nintendo is alienating such a large portion of the gaming community.

You're cute but I will not trust you. Games like Nintendogs, Animal Crossing, Brain Training, Kirby, etc. are appealing to anyone, except to some teenagers who need "mature" games because they are ashamed of their child side.

But all Nintendo is doing is catering to the simplistic. I enjoy that, but I crave more and I crave that more often, quite naturally. And guess what? The average gamer is older. And I'm extremely confident that the average gamer craves more.

I still fully believe the Revmote should've been a highlighted accessory to the machine ala the EyeToy, rather than limiting the system by focusing on it entirely.

 

[R0nn]

I don't get how maturing game content to the level of movies or literature will actually expand the gaming industry massively. Sure, it worked out in the PS era but it probably wont work that way again. Why? Because back then it was a combination of 3D graphics, cutscenes, voice-overs, orchestrated music and more realism that did the job of expanding the market. Storylines and the like didn't actually improve that much in most cases compared to previous generations, they simply got spiced up thanks to technological advances. In that regard, the expansion of the industry was generally caused by presentation, not content. You could appeal to a wider audience, simply because the technology finally allowed you to do so. It had hardly anything to do with storylines themselves, most people don't even care that much about there being a deep and compelling storyline in a game. They just want to have a fun and immersive experience. If the storyline can contribute to that fun factor, great! But it's mostly the gameplay that defines the amount of fun someone has with a game. It's interactive entertainment, not an interactive movie (yes, those are two different things)!

Now, will we ever see a comparable leap in presentation of games again? Probably not. All the stuff introduced back then, is still used today in exactly the same fashion. Sure, there are clear technical improvements being made especially in regards to graphics, physics and AI, but it's not anything NEW. It's just a constant improvement of elements which were introduced about 10 years ago. Storylines have hardly improved. They are presented better yes, but that's about it. So how will the industry expand massively for a second time, when a big leap in overall presentation will never happen again? Yes I know what you're thinking now: "just improve the storylines, since that's the main part that hasn't improved that much in the course of 10+ years!" Well, I can respond to that argument with a very simple statement: games are NOT and never will be movies or literature. In those two mediums (movies and literature), the storyline is probably the biggest driving force that keeps you going, that keeps you entertained (well, in most cases at least). In games, it is NOT. The single biggest thing that keeps you going in a game is compelling, interesting and addictive gameplay. The reason for this simply being that games are interactive and movies and literature are not. And as I said before, many people don't play games with the storyline being the biggest issue anyway. It's gameplay first and foremost that needs to be improved and, more importantly, expanded upon to keep this industry going. Of course, the storyline could play a big part in this and I'm not saying they should ditch storylines at all. I love good storylines in my games, just don't make it the de-facto element that should drive the entertainment value of a game. These direct comparisons between movies/literature and games needs to stop asap, since they're completely different entertainment media. It's just wrong.

If you implement a storyline then make sure that gameplay drives the storyline, not the other way around. I think that about sums up my vision on this subject. Give players more freedom while keeping it accessible, try not to break up gameplay with long-winded cutscenes in between, make the story interactive and completely intertwined with the gameplay, and first and foremost: let gameplay be the main driving force behind the fun factor instead of anything else. Not a single game I can think of implements these elements well as of now. Indigo Prophecy just scratches the surface of what could be done to draw more people in. How does Revolution fit into all of this? Well, because Nintendo doesn't believe that any improvement in presentation will ever lead to a massive growth of the market again, and I agree with that philosophy. That's exactly why they are trying to dramatically improve, or at least expand gameplay mechanics, since that has always been the main driving force behind games and it should always stay that why. If you change that and put the focus all on presentation or storyline, then we aren't talking about games anymore.

 

[Taker666]

I still fully believe the Revmote should've been a highlighted accessory to the machine ala the EyeToy, rather than limiting the system by focusing on it entirely.

I don't see how it's limiting the system. There are very few genres that couldn't work as well or be improved with the Revmote/ nunchuck combo.

 

[turtle553]

That's why I said "Even cutting that number in half totally blows away the number of games released this year, on all platforms combined.". And imdb.com doesn't even include every foreign release. Trust me elo, cinematic releases worldwide completely destroy game releases worldwide by such a huge margin the comparison shouldn't even be made.

I don't think wordwide movie releases comes close to the number of games released. I guess it also depends on if you count something like Madden as one game or as 6 because it is on all systems.

That 17,000 figure on IMDB also includes porn movies and TV movies. According to this there were only 233 movies released worldwide that grossed more than $177k.

I think we may have diminishing returns in graphics when people are complaining that hair doesn't look realistic enough, but there is a ways to go with A.I., physics, number of characters on screen, and fully interactive environments.

 

[Beowvlf]

I don't see how it's limiting the system. There are very few genres that couldn't work as well or be improved with the Revmote/ nunchuck combo.

Ardent Nintendo fans posting ideas of how this could be done or how that could be done is one thing, putting them into practice is another. And seeing as how there are some that said the same thing about the touchscreen on the DS, until someone does it, I'll remain skeptical.

And if someone thinks flipping the controller upwards to jump in a platformer is 'working just as well' as traditional controls, then count me out. That's a gimmick through and through, and it's my number one concern with the Rev.

And the controller is limiting the system because Nintendo has chosen to focus solely on it. Why is the system so technologically inferior? What if I want complex controls? Where are my options Nintendo?

 

[R0nn]

I used the word 'expanding' a bit too loosely. Brain Training and Nintendogs haven't expanded the market IMO, and by that I mean bring in new gamers. They've brought back old gamers, and it's very questionable how much it's 'brought them back'.

The NDS only just started and the Rev still has to come to market. You are way too early throwing Nintendo's strategy out of the window, based on what they've done up until now (barely more than a year after they started with this market approach). How do you know for a fact btw that Nintendo is only attracting old gamers and not new gamers? Is your own daughter not a perfect example of a new gamer? If Nintendogs' apparant userbase is any indication, it seems to attract more new instead of old gamers. If Nintendo keeps on producing titles which have the potential to appeal to both new and old gamers (which they're BOTH trying to attract), there's not much of a problem at all. Just wait when Rev comes around and NDS seriously kicks in.

And as the shift from Nintendo consoles to PlayStation consoles showed, I don't believe simplistic gaming can maintain a consumer base. The industry has neglected it a bit, but eventually everyone wants more. Which is why it's very possible that the gamers brought back by Nintendogs or Brain Training may eventually look elsewhere, because Nintendo is alienating such a large portion of the gaming community.

Sorry to say this, but you're so wrong here. As I pointed out in my previous post, the expansion of the market around that shift, was caused by numerous technical improvements so games could be presented in a more compelling way to many people. It had nothing to do with simplistic vs. complex gaming or anything like that. Of course people constantly want more, but I don't see how Nintendo couldn't deliver on that matter. They just need to release more of these new and refreshing games that appeal to new and old gamers, that is all. You cannot constantly improve the same old stuff, people will eventually get tired of that. What they really crave for is new stuff, not constantly improved stuff.

Oh and btw, as I pointed out before as well: games are first and foremost about fun gameplay experiences, not a deep storyline, complex controls or anything like that.

But all Nintendo is doing is catering to the simplistic. I enjoy that, but I crave more and I crave that more often, quite naturally. And guess what? The average gamer is older. And I'm extremely confident that the average gamer craves more.

I still fully believe the Revmote should've been a highlighted accessory to the machine ala the EyeToy, rather than limiting the system by focusing on it entirely.

This is not about simplicity, it's about accesibility. Games like Zelda and Mario are quite challenging and compelling aren't they? You could even call them complex in some regards. Still, they ARE quite accessible by a large audience because of the gameplay and the controls. The Revmote is an amplification of this. You can play very challenging, deep and complex games with it, while the controls are being kept really accessible and understandble for everyone. I don't see what's wrong with that at all. All the Revmote does is replacing archiac and essentially unnatural button presses with really natural hand/arm gestures. I will even go out and say that the Revmote gives developers FAR more possibilities in regards to controls compared to regular controllers. Actually, regular controllers are MUCH more limiting than the Revmote because of the fixed button layout. Some developers have already been quoted as saying that they love the Revmote for this. It simply gives them so much more creative freedom because they could essentially map an ingame action to every single hand/arm movement you could possibly make. That's also why I'm REALLY looking forward to this thing. Oh and btw, the Revmote is so much more that the DS touchscreen. The fact that it controls in a 3D plane, compared to the 2D plane of a touchscreen (or any other input method up until now), speaks volumes already.