PSX5Central
Playstation/Gaming Discussions => Gaming Discussion => Topic started by: Jumpman on August 27, 2001, 08:30:31 PM
-
http://www.dojomedia2.com/infocus/index.php#998958703
Sony Feels the Pressure
Several media outlets are reporting that Sony has sent memos to developers concerning future game projects. Apparently, Sony has been feeling the heat of the graphical power of GameCube and Microsoft\'s Xbox and the company has now advised developers to put more development time into creating better graphics and less time in developing lengthy gameplay experiences.
As consoles get more powerful, the video game industry has transformed into a visual presentation race. Sony\'s recent memo to stress graphics over gameplay is just a sign of the changing times.
roflmao
This makes my planning to buy a PS2 after NGC decision a lot more different...maybe Xbox could be my second console? Looks like that possibility isn\'t so far fetched right now...I\'ll wait and see though, but I definitely don\'t like the sounds of this.
-
What did you expect from the company that has contracts with developers to include FMV in games.
Good ole Sony :)
Eric Jacob
-
This news dosen\'t surprise me the slightest bit!
-
Amusing post, but I would believe it more had it been posted on a major site. The link that was posted said it was taken from Gamespot but I was unable to find it there. Oh well. I don\'t care anyway, you can\'t believe everything you read.
/ dm /
-
This is crazy......if it\'s true it has to be the dumbest thing sony has ever said. And what developer would listen to this peace of crap. Graphics over gameplay......I guess those mary kate and ashley games will get awesome graphics now:laughing: :laughing:
EDIT: THE GAMEPLAY ALWAYS SUCKED IN THOSE GAMES SO THIS IS A WIN WIN SITUATION FOR FANS OF THOSE TWO.
-
Yep, Final Fantasy 10 will have the shortest gameplay ever!
Riiiiight..
-
Not to mention GT3, that game is short in length and has no gameplay.... :rolleyes:
-
Originally posted by JP
Not to mention GT3, that game is short in length and has no gameplay.... :rolleyes:
...and this is nothing compared to the crappy game-play of some games coming out...MGS2,SH2,Ico,J&D,Virtua Fighter4,GTN etc :D...sure all these games will show us only great graphics:eek:
...joking aside...I think casual gamers do care a lot about graphics and maybe some developers will stress graphics rather than game-play to impress this "kind of odd gamers:D"...but I\'m sure it won\'t be the new trend of Sony:)...but only "a little demonstration" of PS2 graphics capabilities...
-
Hmm..
I wonder why most of SONYS own games focus more on gameplay than graphics..
Hmmm...
-
This thing is totally skewed ! Read what the publication says :
"less time in developing lenghty gameplay expierences"
Sony didn\'t say to neglect gameplay quality. better : devs
can create better gameplay when games don\'t have absurd lengths of 30 or 40 hours of play. 15 to 20 hours is fine with
me because I can have my good graphics both with compact
exciting gameplay.
Lotsa games now have big worlds with few interactivity and
pointless wandering around.
Good move by Sony to stress on Graphics and compact gameplay.
Knotter8
:laughing:
-
No matter what some games that are out,
have become very short IMO, and i do not like that ... for the money i pay i would like to play 20-30 hours.. not 7....
-
Ask yourself why that is Toxical ! From launch PS2 has
had few adventure games versus lotsa sports and action
games. The few adventure games also being just accepable.
C\'mon RE CV is only now just around the corner, so big adventure
games have yet to come.
Knotter8
-
Originally posted by Knotter8
Ask yourself why that is Toxical ! From launch PS2 has
had few adventure games versus lotsa sports and action
games. The few adventure games also being just accepable.
C\'mon RE CV is only now just around the corner, so big adventure
games have yet to come.
Knotter8
Hope you are right,
cause i dont\' want to play 5-7 hour games. :eek:
-
Graphics over gameplay? Of course, it makes perfect sense - GT3 sold a $hitload of copies with pretty graphics and almost the same gameplay as GT2, and many people on this very board seemed to write of the next Zelda and Mario games on the GC (\'Nintendo\'s going down\', \'the end of Nintendo\' etc.) because they don\'t have nice graphics so can you blame Sony for preaching graphics over gameplay? It\'s how most gamers think nowadays.
-
mmm... very bad. All we know that PS2 power is lower than GC and XBOX. Developers have to do good games without look at the other consoles ones.
-
Lavan, what are you talking about exactly?
Yes, the gameplay of GT3 is very similar to GT2 but wtf more could they have done...
Is it a bad thing it resembled GT2 in gameplay? Hell no!
It\'s been hailed as the most realistic racer ever, and I think so too. There ain\'t so much more they can add to it gameplay-wise...
People buy the GT games cause they love the gameplay...
And with GT3 we got what we fans always wanted, more realistic grahics to suit the realistic gameplay.
I don\'t think anyone would have bought GT2 if the gameplay sucked coz the gfx sucked ass IMO, even for a PS1 game.
Those milions who bought it, did it for the gameplay.
Just because you didn\'t like the gameplay doesn\'t mean that everyone else thinks so.
And another thing about games being too short on the PS2, I think that\'s been overexaggerated (sp?)...
Especially considering Onimusha. CapCom\'s survival horror games have always been short. Every Resi game had like 5-6 hours worth of play.
-
Originally posted by JP
Lavan, what are you talking about exactly?
Yes, the gameplay of GT3 is very similar to GT2 but wtf more could they have done...
Is it a bad thing it resembled GT2 in gameplay? Hell no!
It\'s been hailed as the most realistic racer ever, and I think so too. There ain\'t so much more they can add to it gameplay-wise...
People buy the GT games cause they love the gameplay...
And with GT3 we got what we fans always wanted, more realistic grahics to suit the realistic gameplay.
I don\'t think anyone would have bought GT2 if the gameplay sucked coz the gfx sucked ass IMO, even for a PS1 game.
Those milions who bought it, did it for the gameplay.
Just because you didn\'t like the gameplay doesn\'t mean that everyone else thinks so.
The most \'realistic\' RACER ever? Don\'t make me laugh, what other racing games have you played - why don\'t you try Grand Prix Legends, Grand Prix 3 and Jarret & Labonte Stock Car Racing for starters.
What could they add? \'wtf more could they have done\' Hmm...
i)Car Damage - for the most \'realistic\' racer ever don\'t you find it funny you can slam into a wall at 150 mph and nothing happens to your car. Don\'t start that bull**** about licenses J&L had cars from Nissan, Toyota, Chrysler, BMW, Audi, and Ford and DID have car damage. Of course Polyphony probably couldn\'t get ALL the manufacturers to agree to have their cars damaged, but why couldn\'t we have non-visible damage? Oh, but that would mean they\'d have to spend less time on the graphics.
ii)Rotational Collision Physics - if you tail end a car in GT3 it simply goes faster (ala Mario Kart), just watch a Nascar race to see what really happens. If you tried to bank off other cars when turning (like you can in GT3) in GPL both cars would go spinning out.
iii)Improve the AI - they don\'t even acknowledge your presence, they simply drive around their pre-defined paths - compare this to the games I just mentioned where opposing cars attack and defend the racing line. How the f uck can you call it the ultimate \'racer\' when you\'re driving against idiots who don\'t even know you\'re there.
iv)A larger field - only 5 other cars to race against? What is this, GT Mario Kart? J&L has a field of 11 other cars, while the GP games feature full 20+ fields...but of course if they added more cars to race against the graphics wouldn\'t be pretty.
Play some REAL racing games (ie not Ridge Racer and Sega GT) before you call GT3 the ultimate racing game, I don\'t even consider it a racing game - it\'s a driving game, a damn good one at that, but the actual racing model is atrocious. For all my complaints about the game I still like it, I got to about 60% before I finally got bored of simply racing against the track.
$hit go out and rent Nascar Heat 2002 - that game is much more of a real racing game than GT3 - it has proper collision physics and a decent racing model (the drafting model is spectacular).
Of course none of those games I mentioned have such nice graphics, and that\'s the bottom line, in the \'greatest racer ever\' you can\'t even adjust the sfx/music levels, it doesn\'t save the lap times for all the courses (this was in GT2), you can\'t customise your cars (this was in GT2) and you have LESS cars than GT2.
Those who call GT3 the best racer ever are either a)graphics whores or b)have never played real racing games or c)GManJoe.
J&L is the best pure racing console game money can buy, it has licenced cars, more tracks than GT3, an excellent damage model, incredible AI, and a 12 car field and all this on the 32 bit PSX - of course it didn\'t sell because the graphics whores at Gamespot, Videogames.com, IGN, and Gaming-Age didn\'t like the visuals so it didn\'t get the press it deserved. I can say the same thing for EA Sports\' Fifa series as compared to Konami\'s ISS Pro series.
In the end graphics sell, they sold GT3. We look at screenshots of games and if they look poor we write off the game. If EA Sports produced Madden 2003 with the same gameplay, less features, but better graphics they would be crucified...unless their graphics were as special as those in GT3 - then it\'s okay, we can put on the blinders, not see the faults in the game, call it the best ever, and throw progress, constructive criticism and inovation down the toilet.
Maybe for GT4 they will give even less cars, less tracks, same gameplay, but if they improve the graphics even further I\'m sure it will be widely hailed as the greatest racing game ever.
The GC Zelda looks cartoony and the GC Mario looks only a step up from Mario 64 so they both must be $hit and the GC is doomed.
-
Lavan, I still don\'t see why everyone is disappointed with Zelda\'s graphics. I think the game looks very good. I\'ve said this before, and I\'ll say it again, just because the graphics are different, does not in any way make the graphics inferior.
JP, they could have at least added more new tracks. I got bored of that game because I had already played GT2 to death. They also only had about 200 cars -- which pales in comparison to GT2\'s 600+. They could have added car damage. To say that they can\'t get permission from the different companies is so stupid. If they were persistant and explained to every car company exactly what would be done, I think they could have got permission from everyone. They could have added more interactive objects (the cones were cool, but there can be so much more). I agree with what Lavan said about GT3. It is a GT2 with better graphics -- nothing more.
-
Yep, Final Fantasy 10 will have the shortest gameplay ever!
Riiiiight..
You certainly proved your point with one game.
Riiiiiight...
Not to mention GT3, that game is short in length and has no gameplay....
In the end, it\'s just a racing game. Which means there isn\'t too much variety in gameplay. Kudos to PP for knowing that PS2 fans are easily fooled.
and this is nothing compared to the crappy game-play of some games coming out...MGS2,SH2,Ico,J&D,Virtua Fighter4,GTN etc ...sure all these games will show us only great graphics
MGS2, and SH2 will be short games. We already know that. There\'s 2 shinning examples. But it\'s from Konami, so we shoudn\'t exactly expect lenghty gameplay experiences.
but I\'m sure it won\'t be the new trend of Sony
This topic proves other-wise. :)
Hmm..
I wonder why most of SONYS own games focus more on gameplay than graphics..
Hmmm...
LOL. No comment needed.
It\'s how most gamers think nowadays.
True, but Sony should be encouraging developers to do the opposite. They should try and get gamers more focused on great gameplay instead of fancy graphics. But alas, Sony is what is wrong with the gaming industry today.
There ain\'t so much more they can add to it gameplay-wise...
Yes there is.
-Less repiditive races.
-More tracks.
-Realistic physics
-Realistic AI
-
Originally posted by IronFist
Lavan, I still don\'t see why everyone is disappointed with Zelda\'s graphics. I think the game looks very good. I\'ve said this before, and I\'ll say it again, just because the graphics are different, does not in any way make the graphics inferior.
You\'re preaching to the choir - I too LOVE Zelda\'s new graphical style - I recently played (and finished) Klonoa2 and I LOVED the cell-shaded graphics in that game, it was so vibrant and full of life. The thought of a massive free-roaming, 3D WORLD comprised of the same vibrant visuals makes me wet my pants in anticipation. That spaceworld video was incredible IMO - it\'s like you\'re playing a Saturday morning cartoon, and I for one never considered Zelda to be dark or serious.
My beef was not with the visuals themselves - whether you like them or not is a matter of taste - my problem was that many of those who didn\'t like the graphics (I recall someone saying they were made using windows paint) immediately felt the game would be flop. Same for Mario GC. Which comes back to my original point, for most gamers GRAPHICS indeed matter more than gameplay, and that\'s why Sony is smart to do what they\'re doing. I don\'t agree with it one iota, but you just have to see GT3\'s sales figures and the rediculous hyperbole and ass kissing it received from the major gaming sites and magazines to see that excellent graphics can blind people of uninspired gameplay.
If GT3 had RRV\'s graphics it would have been slaughtered by the gaming press and the average gamer; \'it\'s the same as GT2\', \'hey, how come there are less cars\', \'the AI is still dumb\' etc. But all that was ignored because of the jaw-dropping visuals, so can you blame Sony? I can\'t.
-
About car damage:a)Just wondering....how would they gain permission from all those manufacturers for all the cars?b)I dont think car manufacturers wouldnt demand extra cash from Polyphony to let them include car damage.
Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.Dont you think?
-
Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.Dont you think?
Actually that\'s pretty much the main reason why we got it. We had it like 2 months before it was even out. Why? Because there was so much hype surrounding the graphics so that played a significant role in getting it.
-
Originally posted by Jumpman
Actually that\'s pretty much the main reason why we got it. We had it like 2 months before it was even out. Why? Because there was so much hype surrounding the graphics so that played a significant role in getting it.
But its not a dead forum.It would have been a dead forum after its release if there wasnt anything spectacular about its gameplay.There is still a lot of conversation happening in there.And its not because of the graphics.
-
But its not a dead forum.It would have been a dead forum after its release if there wasnt anything spectacular about its gameplay.There is still a lot of conversation happening in there.And its not because of the graphics
This is where you are wrong, it is all about the graphics, GT3 plays like GT2, same dame game, only dif is that GT3 has a face lift. It\'s all about the HYPE and the graphics, nothing more.
Heck you guys might as well of put up a GT2 forum mounths before GT3 came out. It\'s amazing what pretty graphics can do.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
About car damage:a)Just wondering....how would they gain permission from all those manufacturers for all the cars?b)I dont think car manufacturers wouldnt demand extra cash from Polyphony to let them include car damage.
The head Polyphony guy just needs to talk to the head car guy of each company and explain to them what is going on. He can say that if all of the companies don\'t agree on car damage, then it won\'t be in the game -- which would eliminate the fear of your car being smashed up but another car being invinsible. I think the real reason that Polyphony didn\'t include car damage in GT3 is because they were too lazy. They didn\'t want to put in all that extra effort even though it would make the game a whole lot better.
And like Jumpman said, they promised better AI and they didn\'t deliver. The cars still drive around the tracks the same way cars have always driven around tracks in car games. That was probably the most disappointing thing with GT3 when I got it.
Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.
Maybe not, but GT3 was still way over hyped. Polyphony made a lot of false promises just to hype their game up.
Back to the main topic. Sony is being so stupid. Instead of being original and different, they are trying to follow the croud by making games have better graphics but less involving gameplay. If they would make long games with up to par graphics and great gameplay, I think they would come out on top this generation. But because of this dicision (as well as many others), I think they are killing themselves and the Sony Playstation name.
Lets just hope that some developers still know what true gamers really want -- great gameplay and games worth our $50.
-
Originally posted by Unicron!
About car damage:a)Just wondering....how would they gain permission from all those manufacturers for all the cars?b)I dont think car manufacturers wouldnt demand extra cash from Polyphony to let them include car damage.
Also I dont think we\'ve got a forum deticated exclusively in GT3 because of the graphics only.Dont you think?
a)Like I said before (many, many, MANY) times Jarret and Labonte Stock Car Racing had more than 70 real-life car models (Nissans, Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, BMWs, Audis etc) and still had car damage. You could really F-up those cars - everything from messing up the wheel-alignment to smashing the headlights to side impact collisions to smashing your windshield to even your car bursting into flames when you get into a really nasty accident. The damage isn\'t there for aesthetic reasons either - it forces you to race smart and it adds a very real sense of danger to the races. Not to mention there are 11 other cars you\'re racing against and the opposing driver AI in that game is light years ahead of the \'AI\' in GT3.
ddaryl and I discussed the damage in GT3 and we came to the conclusion that perhaps not ALL of the manufacturers wanted their cars damaged - so it\'s clear then, that Polyphony decided to chose car selection over gameplay. Even if they couldn\'t include visual damage they still could have had non-visible damage LIKE THEY HAD IN THE ARCADE MODE OF GT2!!!!!!! That\'s yet another feature present in GT2, but absent in GT3. Why was that ignored in most reviews? Because the graphics are so nice. Like I said before, if GT3 had RRV\'s graphics everyone would have pointed out many of the faults I\'ve been pointing out, but since it looks nice almost everone ignores gameplay faults, so again, Sony\'s strategy of making the games look prettier instead of more innovative or more fun seems to make sense since GT3 sold by the truckload. I don\'t agree with it, but the proof is all over the net.
b)According to the video interview at Gamespot many car manufacturers actually WENT TO polyphony to ask to put their cars in the game.
-
Originally posted by IronFist
The head Polyphony guy just needs to talk to the head car guy of each company and explain to them what is going on. He can say that if all of the companies don\'t agree on car damage, then it won\'t be in the game -- which would eliminate the fear of your car being smashed up but another car being invinsible. I think the real reason that Polyphony didn\'t include car damage in GT3 is because they were too lazy. They didn\'t want to put in all that extra effort even though it would make the game a whole lot better.
And like Jumpman said, they promised better AI and they didn\'t deliver. The cars still drive around the tracks the same way cars have always driven around tracks in car games. That was probably the most disappointing thing with GT3 when I got it.
You are right about the game\'s AI.It isnt as improved as Polyphony said.But from what I hear its still a very challenging experience sometimes.
Perhaps they were lazy too.Actually its sure.But who knows?
They did a great job though in other parts of the game.
Originally posted by IronFist
Maybe not, but GT3 was still way over hyped. Polyphony made a lot of false promises just to hype their game up.
Back to the main topic. Sony is being so stupid. Instead of being original and different, they are trying to follow the croud by making games have better graphics but less involving gameplay. If they would make long games with up to par graphics and great gameplay, I think they would come out on top this generation. But because of this dicision (as well as many others), I think they are killing themselves and the Sony Playstation name.
Lets just hope that some developers still know what true gamers really want -- great gameplay and games worth our $50.
If it was the case of superb graphics and hype it could have ended like the bouncer(which is not succesfull.Promises that we never saw in the final game etc).But GT3 offered enough to keep people satisfyied.We didnt get the AI promised.But its not that much of a big deal.
Atleast we got all the other things they promised.We even got more cars than they first said.
I am not a GT3 owner but from what I read it seems to have great lastability.Ofcourse I might be wrong.
Originally posted by Lavan
a)Like I said before (many, many, MANY) times Jarret and Labonte Stock Car Racing had more than 70 real-life car models (Nissans, Toyotas, Fords, Chryslers, BMWs, Audis etc) and still had car damage. You could really F-up those cars - everything from messing up the wheel-alignment to smashing the headlights to side impact collisions to smashing your windshield to even your car bursting into flames when you get into a really nasty accident. The damage isn\'t there for aesthetic reasons either - it forces you to race smart and it adds a very real sense of danger to the races. Not to mention there are 11 other cars you\'re racing against and the opposing driver AI in that game is light years ahead of the \'AI\' in GT3.
ddaryl and I discussed the damage in GT3 and we came to the conclusion that perhaps not ALL of the manufacturers wanted their cars damaged - so it\'s clear then, that Polyphony decided to chose car selection over gameplay. Even if they couldn\'t include visual damage they still could have had non-visible damage LIKE THEY HAD IN THE ARCADE MODE OF GT2!!!!!!! That\'s yet another feature present in GT2, but absent in GT3. Why was that ignored in most reviews? Because the graphics are so nice. Like I said before, if GT3 had RRV\'s graphics everyone would have pointed out many of the faults I\'ve been pointing out, but since it looks nice almost everone ignores gameplay faults, so again, Sony\'s strategy of making the games look prettier instead of more innovative or more fun seems to make sense since GT3 sold by the truckload. I don\'t agree with it, but the proof is all over the net.
b)According to the video interview at Gamespot many car manufacturers actually WENT TO polyphony to ask to put their cars in the game.
Dont forget that each car needed around a week each to desighn.150+ cars of one weak each.....That ate much from development time and manpower.
Perhaps we got more cars because manufacturers came to PD.Reason one could be the reason why PD was lazy to ask the manufacturers themselves....
If GT2000(before the graphical overhaul) had all the things PD had promised it could have been a failure and a total bushed game.People would have called it GT2 just a lot shinier....
Is GT3 really that much of a disapointment???Because I am trying to realize that but I just cant.
-
I\'m sick and tired of people saying Game X is overhyped and blah blah blah. Who gives a flying f\'ck? I personally thought Ocarina of Time was way over-hyped. Big deal. Because I think OOT was overhyped, does that make it a fact? No.
/ dm /
-
I love th emis interpetation people get out of a supposedly circulated memo that appeared on a website a month ago and then all of a sudden its on every Nintendo and XBox website around
The memo never said concentrate on graphics and not gameplay.
Take your time a read the original memo
It asked developers not to work on long games at the expense of a well polished project.
This to mean means framerate, graphical quality, and just plain debugging among a dozen other things we gamers look for in quality titles
but for those who are still concerned
Blood Omen II is said to be 40+ hours
Drakan II is said to be 40 + hours
Soul Reaver II will be more then 20 hours
J+D will be close to 20 hours
FFX will be well into 60\'s
GT3 has eaten up 50 hours + and I\'m barely 50% done with it
Red Faction was 18 hours
TMB easily is over 30 hours with lots of replay value
MGS2 will be 15- 18 hours
SSX Tricky will have lots of replay value
Baldurs Gate DA is rumored around 30+ hours
and naturally most games will be about 20 hours longs give or take a few hours
But I know everyone here just loves to make mountains out of mole hills especially in debate.
Whats even funnier is that this same post was put up in the IGN.PS2 forums 10 times yesterday, all we\'re traceable back to Nintendo and Xbox fans. SO I\'m not surprised to see the same thing reposted here
-
LOL!!!!!!
-
I hope Jak and Daxter will be 20+ hours.I\'m really looking forward the that game.I\'m going crazy, I can\'t wait anymore
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpz.co.uk%2Fcwm%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fkilltard.gif&hash=beb9eff60794133ddafa721653046a46d50dcfad)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpz.co.uk%2Fcwm%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fkilltard.gif&hash=beb9eff60794133ddafa721653046a46d50dcfad)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpz.co.uk%2Fcwm%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fkilltard.gif&hash=beb9eff60794133ddafa721653046a46d50dcfad)
(https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpz.co.uk%2Fcwm%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fkilltard.gif&hash=beb9eff60794133ddafa721653046a46d50dcfad) (https://psx5central.com/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.mpz.co.uk%2Fcwm%2Fcwm%2F3dlil%2Fkilltard.gif&hash=beb9eff60794133ddafa721653046a46d50dcfad)
-
Hey ddaryl you forgot TTT? TTT-endless reply value!!!!!!!!!!!!!!:thepimp: :thepimp: :thepimp: :thepimp: :thepimp:
-
See?Things arent as bad as they look.PS2 has lots of long high quality titles.
-
Would it surprise me if they said this? No. Do I believe this memo? No. Once it is confirmed on offical sites and not on GC or Xbox sites it will have a lot more truth to it, in my opinion. Then again, this opinion is coming from someone who complains that most games today are just full of cinemas and mindless complain...So, take it for what it is worth.
-
Lavan, that GT3 rant earned you a ton of respect in my mind.
That was one of the most thought out, interesting points I have read on this board in a LONG time. Many people spend over half an hour on some of their posts and I can\'t even read through them, they are so boring.
I would say in Physics and AI, F355 Challenge in the arcade or DC would champ GT3, like I had said all along before GT3 even came out, easily.
Good points on J&L, a great game, even though I am not much for that type of racing game.
Eric Jacob
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
Lavan, that GT3 rant earned you a ton of respect in my mind.
That was one of the most thought out, interesting points I have read on this board in a LONG time. Many people spend over half an hour on some of their posts and I can\'t even read through them, they are so boring.
I would say in Physics and AI, F355 Challenge in the arcade or DC would champ GT3, like I had said all along before GT3 even came out, easily.
Good points on J&L, a great game, even though I am not much for that type of racing game.
Eric Jacob
I guess GT3 is one of the flawest games then isnt it.:rolleyes:.
-
BOTTOM LINE:
I am a developer and no one is going to tell me how to write my program. That\'s my work and my art that I\'ll spend hundreds of hours on and the code is none of your business.
WORD
-
I didn\'t say anything like that, now did I, Unicron?
GT3 was and still is overhyped. I don\'t find it fun because I was looking for improvements over GT1 or 2. I have GT2, I don\'t need a 50 dollar graphical upgrade with a downgrade in MANY other features.
Eric Jacob
-
GT3 was and still is overhyped. I don\'t find it fun because I was looking for improvements over GT1 or 2. I have GT2, I don\'t need a 50 dollar graphical upgrade with a downgrade in MANY other features.
WORD!!!
-
I thought GT3 was great. Now, was it a perfect game? Nope. And if the hype made it seem that way, then it certainly didn\'t live up to the hype. But I still find it fun and enjoyable game. You may disagree, called having a different opinion. Everyone is entited to them.
This "graphics over gameplay" BS memo. Not saying it isn\'t a true memo sent out to developers, but the way Xbox and GC fanboys are making it, are truely blowing it out of proportion. NOW, I hate short games like everyone else (afterall, you won\'t find me praising Bouncer or the likes). But a long game, will not save a ****ty game. Afterall, like ddaryl said, don\'t work on excessively long games at the expense of a well polished games.
For example, RE games and games in the "survival horror" genre are fairly short (if your really good, you can beat these games within 3 hours or less). Yet I would play these games, over a games like Evergrace or some other crappy game. No matter what the length is.
And, back to ddaryl post, he has a nice list of "long" games for the PS2 (that also happen to have good/great graphics) that are coming to the PS2. Hmmmmmmmmmmm...so developers are coming out with these great "long" games with "good/great" gameplay.
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
I didn\'t say anything like that, now did I, Unicron?
GT3 was and still is overhyped. I don\'t find it fun because I was looking for improvements over GT1 or 2. I have GT2, I don\'t need a 50 dollar graphical upgrade with a downgrade in MANY other features.
Eric Jacob
I don\'t agree with you...I\'m a hot GT fan(and even a little talented:)=1\'32"5 -special stage R11 with the GTO(clean guide) - 1\'22"8 (tricky guide) GT1 etc...
After playing GT3..."you can\'t play GT2 any more"..and not just because GT3 has better graphics...but most of all because the controll is sensibly more precise,there\'s no slow down and you can take easy a landmark(the graphics is far more detailed and it has more draw-distance=in this case better graphics give you better game-play;)) to start a breathtaking braking in the exact point you want...or to perfectly evaluate the braking distance...and now you have analog pressure on the accelerator and brakes...and these are the kind of things that make a racing game even more realistic,obviously....now I can lighten my foot on the accelerator on the"chord-point" exactly as I wish to perform perfect turns...and I know...only a real fan of this kind of games could appreciate all this....
So Altered...please...don\'t be superficial...even if GT3 lost some little features of GT2...it has gained something more important=game-play! and I know that most of people can\'t notice that...
I would say in Physics and AI, F355 Challenge in the arcade or DC would champ GT3, like I had said all along before GT3 even came out, easily.
What do you mean for Physics?
-
quote by BizioEE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and this is nothing compared to the crappy game-play of some games coming out...MGS2,SH2,Ico,J&D,Virtua Fighter4,GTN etc ...sure all these games will show us only great graphics
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by JumpMan
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MGS2, and SH2 will be short games. We already know that. There\'s 2 shinning examples. But it\'s from Konami, so we shoudn\'t exactly expect lenghty gameplay experiences.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don\'t get me wrong...I was not referring to the lenght of the game-experience:)...- though MGS2 is not so short and there\'re games coming out with more than 30-40 hours of game-play(ddaryl gave us some examples) - but I simply made a comment about the fact that future PS2 games should follow the new trend "great graphics and poor game-play"...I mean...if a game has a less number of game-play hours...it has a crappy-game play ?
Are we speaking of game-play? longevity? Both? ...when I read at first this thread...it appeared to me a little misleading...and that\'s why I replied in that way.....:)
-
Im sure someone else has said this before..
"If its not broken dont fix it.."
By that I mean.. GT3\'s gameplay is great..
How could they improve it??
Btw.. I saw an interview with Kaz. Yamauchi-san, he said he was planing something special with GT-N (GT Network)
I wonder what that is. :)
He said something like
"GTN is not only going to be racing"
Something like that.. hmm :) :D
Btw..
This, graphics over lenght strategy from Sony is just short term..
They want developers to release the games when Xbox launches in november to compete..
Btw.. I would sure like to read that "memo"..
PS: Btw, some of you here are the most cynical people I have ever met.
-
The biggest disapointment for me in GT3 is that PD didnt include an Omega Boost and Motor Toon mini games as promised:mad:
-
Omega Boost = x memebers of Team Andromeda
Eric Jacob
-
Originally posted by AlteredBeast
Omega Boost = x memebers of Team Andromeda
Eric Jacob
Really???I didnt know that.
Then thats why I liked Omega Boost so much;) .PANZA DRAGOON!!!!!
-
Yup, some went to Polyphony, some went to WOW, and others to Hitmaker, I believe. Now many of the old team is rejoining back on Hitmaker (or is it Smilebit?) to make Panzer Dragoon 4. This should be solid :)
Eric Jacob
-
I\'ve never played any of the Panzer Dragoon games.... Always wanted to play that but never had the money to get a Saturn.
-
I agree that car damage should have been put in. There is no excuse for that, not today with this system. It couldn\'t have been THAT tough to get permission for it. How many other games managed to do it?
But, there is a tougher setting in which you can get "Professional" mode, in which cars don\'t just ignore you, you actually have to race. Why is it a non-factor in most arguments?: It requires something special to bring it forth. I think someone told me it was a code, or something.
I didn\'t get the game, but I know many who did. At first I was going to, even though I don\'t like "racing" or "car" games, but changed my mind. I didn\'t want to be a graphics whore, and that would\'ve been the only reason to get it for me.
Not to stray too far from the original topic, though, I don\'t think that game developers, especially the devs of our favorite franchises will take this directive too seriously. How on earth could you if you were a dev? Does Sony honestly think that people will set it in their minds before making a game, "Let\'s make the shiniest turd possible, and hope its only good point is its graphics"? Or does everyone reading this directive think that this is Sony\'s intent? To just churn out the crap that looks great?
I dunno. I guess we will see in the future who takes it seriously and who doesn\'t.
I think it would\'ve been in Sony\'s best interest to just keep their mouths shut. Let nature take its course, man! The game\'s visuals will get better, and so will their gameplay. Look to some of the future releases and you will see.