raocow's talkhaus

Rénà wrote:conflating perspective and perspective correct texture mapping is nonsense but you're right that the ps1 didn't support it, or hardware depth buffering

Well, probably it is nonsense. What I was trying to say is that the PS1 lacked the technical support for a dev to basically say "hey console, please work out correct perspective and how to handle it in my 3D game for me using your fancy processors, mapping and buffering" in the same way they could on the N64 (and the 3DO & Jag, but who cares about those really?). So if you wanted correct perspective on the PS1 you would have to make the game calculate it for you, and even then it would be a close approximation and not the real deal because of the textures and all that. At least that's the gist of what I think is correct.

man all this technical stuff is like woosh

I'm more in the realm of "okay this technical wizardry is all fine and good but just give me some rad games to play". Which is what consoles/games should be about to begin with. And stuff.

I dunno the only tangent I can think of to weigh in on is "graphics", which I think can be better summed-up by Extra Credits:


and/or a more satirical commentary courtesy of Dunkey: http://youtu.be/fiBBqwwdpe8?t=2m8s

Fluffi-dono wrote:Actually I'm a bit skeptical about realistic graphics.

What's the point of realism in video games? I don't want maniacs to confuse games with reality.

...Do you really think that's a thing?

I say this because it sounds absolutely ridiculous to me to confuse games with reality, but there's probably one or two edge cases of legitimately-crazy people doing things so I may be making a fool of myself.

Due to the nature of this forum, I don't think you'll find very many graphics whores here who want to puke at the sight of Super Mario World's 16-bit graphics, but there are plenty of people in the world who think video games that don't have a certain amount of graphical oomph are worth less than nothing. I even had a friend who wouldn't finish Twilight Princess because it "doesn't look like a Wii game," not realizing that it is, in fact, a Gamecube game ported to the Wii.

I want to puke at the sight of SMW's graphics, but that's because they're a mess of conflicting, ugly styles with no consistency or attempt at any form of art direction. Look at the fucking Bob-omb. TWO COLORS.

Mineyl wrote:I even had a friend who wouldn't finish Twilight Princess because it "doesn't look like a Wii game," not realizing that it is, in fact, a Gamecube game ported to the Wii.

What?
I understand there are people that put graphics above all else in games, but what would someone like that be doing with a Wii? And are TP's graphics really put to shame by anything else on the system? It looks pretty much just as good if not better than a lot of the more popular Wii games out there.

Ashan wrote:

Mineyl wrote:I even had a friend who wouldn't finish Twilight Princess because it "doesn't look like a Wii game," not realizing that it is, in fact, a Gamecube game ported to the Wii.

What?
I understand there are people that put graphics above all else in games, but what would someone like that be doing with a Wii? And are TP's graphics really put to shame by anything else on the system? It looks pretty much just as good if not better than a lot of the more popular Wii games out there.

I don't know, TP was really lacking in a lot of areas, particularly in its artistic design. It didn't play to the strengths of the system like WW did, and the attempt to cover it up with grungy textures and bloom did more to make it worse than better.

It was a dark themed game so everywhere felt really dark. I don't know, I didn't mind. It has a distinct style, so I felt like it had a pretty good atmosphere.

Ashan wrote:It was a dark themed game so everywhere felt really dark. I don't know, I didn't mind. It has a distinct style, so I felt like it had a pretty good atmosphere.

Agreed.

Mineyl wrote:Due to the nature of this forum, I don't think you'll find very many graphics whores here who want to puke at the sight of Super Mario World's 16-bit graphics, but there are plenty of people in the world who think video games that don't have a certain amount of graphical oomph are worth less than nothing. I even had a friend who wouldn't finish Twilight Princess because it "doesn't look like a Wii game," not realizing that it is, in fact, a Gamecube game ported to the Wii.

I totally acknowledge that I'm pretty much 'preaching to the choir' to say it around here, but yeah, I guess it's more about other people that are ridiculous about GURFIXXXXXS

And my bias is more for gameplay being interesting. It's why I burnt out on the shooter genre years ago and gravitated right back into the Nintendo and friends comfort zone.

My order of precedence:

Gameplay
Story
Music
Characters
Giraffics

everything



















graphics

In my opinion:
Controls
Gameplay
Music/Story/Almost Everything Else
Graphics

If the controls of a game are terrible then it doesn't matter how historically important, how amazing the game is to most people, if the controls take "getting used to" to be good then I won't play the game.

I kinda group controls and gameplay together. I'm perfectly fine learning controls if the game is super fun.

Graphs > Graphics
Which is why I like Microsoft Excel more than Call of Duty.

pholtos wrote:In my opinion:
Controls
Gameplay
Music/Story/Almost Everything Else
Graphics

If the controls of a game are terrible then it doesn't matter how historically important, how amazing the game is to most people, if the controls take "getting used to" to be good then I won't play the game.

"Getting used to" doesn't equate to bad. Controls can take getting used to if they are different from other controls in the genre, but once you've learned how to work with something you're not familiar with, can still be vastly more effective and efficient than more standard controls. I find the idea of "I'm not used to it so I won't play it" to be the kind of thinking that holds back gaming more than anything. If the controls are awkward and clunky and not effective, sure, that's a huge problem, but just because they aren't familiar doesn't mean they're bad. The analogue stick was something that took "getting used to" when it first came out, and could you imagine where we'd be if people boycotted games because it used the analogue stick?

Hoeloe wrote:

pholtos wrote:In my opinion:
Controls
Gameplay
Music/Story/Almost Everything Else
Graphics

If the controls of a game are terrible then it doesn't matter how historically important, how amazing the game is to most people, if the controls take "getting used to" to be good then I won't play the game.

"Getting used to" doesn't equate to bad. Controls can take getting used to if they are different from other controls in the genre, but once you've learned how to work with something you're not familiar with, can still be vastly more effective and efficient than more standard controls. I find the idea of "I'm not used to it so I won't play it" to be the kind of thinking that holds back gaming more than anything. If the controls are awkward and clunky and not effective, sure, that's a huge problem, but just because they aren't familiar doesn't mean they're bad. The analogue stick was something that took "getting used to" when it first came out, and could you imagine where we'd be if people boycotted games because it used the analogue stick?

What I mean are games that are clunky to the point of unplayable, an example being tomb raider.

Let's be honest though, early teenage boys didn't buy Tomb Raider to actually play it. If you take a game that has really clunky controls and doesn't have massive tits, odds are it did badly.

my order of preference:

1. it depends on the game and im choosing not to prioritize things when it's very situational

what i mean is a story-based game obviously has story as its most important element. an exploration-y game like Yume Nikki has graphics and music as its most important elements. i try to accept every game for what it is rather than what it is not. so i dislike putting preconceptions onto games. it's the kind of thinking that makes people dislike Dear Esther's lack of gameplay even though it never purported to be a gameplay-based game. one could argue that gameplay is what makes a game a game so it should be prioritized but, i mean, that's usually the case, but there's always room for experimentation. and minimal gameplay could be seen as a form of gameplay design in the first place.

it's so situational.

On getting used to the controls working for a game, I would say Metal Gear Rising is a prime example of that. So many nuances, but there are fights that you will get yours handed to you if you don't know certain tactics.

So it looks like Australia and NZ are getting the New 3DS before everyone else for some reason? And they're the only ones getting it this year.
The only reason I could think of for this is they want to squeeze in as many full price regular 3DS sales as they can before launching the new 3DS and clearing some of their old inventory?

http://www.ign.com/articles/2014/09/24/ ... n-november

So we have an explanation for why the 3DS isn't launching in the West until next year.
http://operationrainfall.com/2014/11/02 ... ence-west/
They want to trick as many people as possible into buying the old hardware before launching so they can immediately regret their purchase and find out they're a generation behind a few months after buying a 3DS. Thanks, Nintendo.

Combine that with the Persona Q 3DSXL, and I become the saddest panda.

The better 3D viewing angle is great. It works at nearly every angle. Now you can play in as many awkward positions as you want! There is a downside, however. It uses facial tracking to adjust the 3D for you and it gets confused if you are wearing glasses.

I'll probably get one eventually. I'm more bummed that my original 3DS can't read Nintendo Zone locations anymore thanks to an update just destroying it. That's one of the cooler features on the machine, so I'll admit it's a bit frustrating.