|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Sept 24, 2006 13:51:15 GMT -5
That is proven immeasurably in games like Chrono Trigger. I'll use Square Enix for an example. Their technology in 1997 or so wasn't great, the capabilities small, but with a huge amount of effort, they practically pushed the limit of what could be done with the PS with Final Fantasy 7 (What little I've seen of it proves my point) But for another, non-game example, FF 7 AC had an unbelievable mix of technology and effort, but you need both. Effort is far more important to the success of a game. For your Marathon, Drizzt, they didn't really use the maximum technology they could have, there was some depth to the game, but not as much as their could have been.
|
|
|
Post by Reno on Sept 24, 2006 14:53:48 GMT -5
You can make anything you want to really, newer Technology might make it easier, but isnt needed. You cant say: " Thier technology wasnt up to date" and use it as a valid excuss.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 24, 2006 21:05:17 GMT -5
I never said that it was technology that determined the measure of a game. If you recall, my qualifications for a good game were game play, story line and graphics. Graphics was the least of my concern. Game play and storyline is mainly what I look for graphics are just extra for me.
|
|
|
Post by Reno on Sept 25, 2006 15:39:06 GMT -5
What does that have to do with what I said? Just because you have limited technology, doesnt mean you cant make anything good. Technology only helps you out.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 26, 2006 13:44:14 GMT -5
I know that, but the technology can limit you sometimes, but still good games can come from them. What I meant by my last post was that a good game for me requires was the 3, technology wasn't one of them.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Sept 27, 2006 11:32:01 GMT -5
They all have to do with technology, Drizzt, especially gameplay and graphics. Technology COULD limit you, but only if you're so behind the technology curve that you can't to anything at all. You could most likely do exactly the same or similar things on an old program that you could on a new one, it just requires more skill and patience, which could hardly be strewn as a bad thing.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 27, 2006 21:44:47 GMT -5
I realize that they are linked to technology, but like we both said at one point or another: The technology is not the deciding factor of a good game. It can limit the game some what but my other 3 categories is what can make a great game.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Sept 28, 2006 10:22:03 GMT -5
Correct, technology isn't what makes a good game, it is how far you push the limits of that technology. If someone makes a game, and it has good graphics, but not any better than most others, then the graphics aren't the focal point of the game. Whether a mere 50-pixel 2D character on some obselete system or a complete full-fledged 3D model, neither of them is very impressive unless they are somehow better than what came before it. Example: Something on the SNes system, the people working on a game make a character, working on it for days and weeks and it comes out as 50-pixel or so 2D character. Not impressive to us who are used to huge 3D graphics. At the same time, a 3D modelled character, who looks far better than 50 pixels, obviously, but was only worked on for 4 hours. It does not make it impressive. It is the time invested and the final product, as well as expanding the capabilities of a game engine graphic-wise.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Sept 28, 2006 20:07:18 GMT -5
Couldn't agree more Ras. Good new games will be or are already hard to find find because they share a trend that movies have: Ideas are running out. If you keep making games out of movies, then you might have a semi fresh idea (Most of the movie based games I've tried were not so great but some turn out very successful like Star Wars.) As for the lack of ideas for movies, my solution would be to make more movies out of games. It's been done before with promising results.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Sept 29, 2006 9:55:42 GMT -5
That strategy would help the movie industry, but not the game one, except possibly for selling more of that game which got turned into a movie. It wouldn't quite work both ways at once. Sadly, there may be few good games coming out in future years-- even now there are few worth buying, and it probably won't get better until it gets worse. Eventually, many of the only worthwhile games out there will consist of continuing installments of a game series, a very popuar one that people will buy whether or not the game is good.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Oct 3, 2006 23:18:54 GMT -5
But most of the time the sequels are worth it. They really should make more movies out of games though, the movie industry is running out of ideas and they seem reluctant to touch the fantasy section so why not use elements from games? Metal Gear for example could make one heck of a movie.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Oct 4, 2006 9:55:41 GMT -5
What Metal Gear has is the best of both worlds-- You are playing a game, but one with many cutscenes and graphics that give the impression of one long movie. If Metal Gear was turned into a movie, it would definately take something away from the series rather than give to it. Besides, finding actors to look like characters would be very troublesome and you'd never get it close to perfect--in games you can make the characters look like whatever you want, if you apply enough work.
|
|
|
Post by Jarlaxle on Oct 4, 2006 21:44:08 GMT -5
The solution for that would be to just make it an animated movie like AC. Otherwise, it is possible to give actors the right appearance for their characters, sure it would take some work but it can be done.
|
|
|
Post by Raistlin Majere on Oct 4, 2006 22:41:44 GMT -5
Niether of those is my point. I admit that if they were to make a Metal Gear movie, I would be quickly out there to see it, but I don't really think that it should be done. Half the enjoyment/satisfaction comes from surpassing difficult parts of the game, beating the challenging parts yourself and seeing the cinematics is better than simply seeing everything happen without any control.
|
|