This is a topic every gamer can share and relate upon. No matter if you're into RPG's or shooters, a hardcore gamer or simply casual...Or an Xbox or PS3 devotee...Everyone shares in this dilemma. The cost of video games.
Now..Being the kind of gamer I am, I am only going to focus on the main bread and butter of my knowledge...The standard game. I will pretty much be ignoring indie and downloadable games because there are on a much different level. But the kinds of games you find on store shelves..The kinds you pop into your PC or console are the ones that are the worst for this kind of problem. I mostly only have one issue...But it's a big one. They're just too damn expensive.
The average cost of a video game now-a-days is around the $70 mark. Anywhere from Modern Warfare 2 to Alan Wake...It's the most common price for an Xbox 360 or PS3 game. Of course...Most Wii and PC games are aprox. 10 bucks cheaper...But I'll get into that later. Gaming is an expensive hobby. But for most of us, it's our favourite one to share in. The problem comes though..Is which games are more deserving of your money? When you need to drop 70 bucks on a game...You're not going to go out on a whim and buy something that "looks good". Most of the time you're going to know exactly what game you want...What is good about the game, and why you want it.
I'll use myself as an example. I don't buy a *ton* of games. I have a pretty decent collection of maybe 20 360 games...But that's about it. Is that because I only like a certain amout of games on the system? Of course not. I love many more games. Games I have played and games I haven't. But I only own 20. Why? Because I can't see myself dropping 70 bucks on something I'm either not sure of, or isn't up to my standards of value. When I buy a game..I know it will be good. Say for example when Halo: Reach comes out. I believe it will be worth my $70 because it's a series I am familiar with and enjoy playing, the multiplayer is both rewarding and highly replayable, and the story is something that will really hook me. Definitely worth my money. But another game I thouroughly enjoyed...Alan Wake...Is not. But why is that? Because it has no multiplayer? I own Oblivion. Because it is short? I own Dead Space. So why don't I own Alan Wake? Simply because it's too expensive.
You see, this is where the problem is. It's a double edged sword really. Games are costing much more to make now than they did even 5 years ago. So in order to turn a profit, publishers need to sell their games for more, and hope they reach a certain target sales number. But what happens when a game comes out that people are unsure about? People won't buy it. Unless people think there is value in it, they won't feel the need to buy it. Just like Alan Wake. I thought it was an amazing game. An outstanding story and amazing visual effects...I loved it. But the need to spend $70 on it was far too much for me. But what happens if the game was say...50 bucks? Or maybe 45? It would probably be in my collection.
So here lies my confusion. Why charge so much? Why must publishers feel the need to put their game up for $70 bucks? Even if reviews and publications rave about the game...Unless it's value is worth the $70, the game is not. But the way I see things...Not only would publishers and developers benefit from selling their games cheaper...The gamer who buys them would too.
Think about it this way. Say video games as a whole dropped 20 bucks...So those $70 games are now $50. You would probably buy a lot more games, right? And not just the Halo's and Call of Duty's of the world...But the Alan Wakes, the Alpha Protocols and the other games that are usually on people's radars but not their shelves. Sure, the companies might not be making as much on the unit as before, but they would definitely see sales numbers rise. If you sell 5 games at $70, and 15 games at $50, you're making more from the latter. More people will buy those games that they're not as sure about...That they played once and kinda enjoyed. They would try new IP's and new genres they were never too aware of because now it's not as much an investment to get into.
Gamer's are fickle. We know what we like and what we don't. But there in lies the problem. We will only buy what we like. But what about the stuff we not so much don't like..But don't know? You make those games cheaper, and you sell more. Yeah...There is always just waiting for prices to drop, but sometimes it takes years to get to a more reasonable number. Why not skip time all together and just release them cheaper? Not only would you see sales numbers grow, but also your demographic would change drastically. Suddenly you're not just selling your game to the dedicated few, but to the target-able masses. You're getting your game out into more hands and more people than you ever did before. And isn't that the point?
Why do you think there are so many people who download these XBLA/PSN/Steam titles? They're cheap. They look cool, they look unique and are unlike what they're used to...But most of all they're what..5 bucks? 10? Indie studios can make a fortune on some of their titles by selling it for 10 bucks a pop. They sell 10,000 copies, which for an indie game is within reason...And they bring in a million bucks. Some high-end development studios don't make that in profit after they sell their game because it's too expensive for what the game is.
So my proposal for all the publishers out there...You like money. We like games. Let's help each other out. The cheaper you sell your games, the more people will buy them; especially the ones who wouldn't have before. Not only are you making more money, more people like me are playing your game. And suddenly everyone is happy.
Except Infinity Ward. No one over there is happy...
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Tuesday, June 29, 2010
Graphics - Photo-Realism vs. Creativity
Over the last generation of gaming, graphics have obviously improved in ways we could never have imagined. The polygon pushing power of this generation's consoles and PC video cards are certainly nothing to sneeze at. We're even getting into true 3D gaming with upcoming titles like Killzone 3, Crysis 2, and even Portal. With games approaching true-to-life photorealism and detail down to the zippers and knobs...We're in a generation in which anything that can be realized and seen in real life can be represented in a video game.
But that said...Why do people consider games like Mario Galaxy 2 and Okami to have "amazing graphics"?
I know that sounds like an asinine question..But when you compare a game like Super Mario Galaxy to Gran Tourismo 5...The graphical feat is pretty obvious. But the reason I ask that is because of this year's E3. I site I generally love visiting is over at Gametrailers.com, and their E3 awards are being distributed now. And guess which game won Best Graphics? Not Killzone or GT5...Or Crysis for that matter...But Kirby's Epic Yarn. A side-scrolling Kirby game made up of colourful yarn won the best graphics. But surely there were other games more deserving of the title, no?
They're not the only publication to think this either. I've seen it all over the web since the game was revealed. It really begs the question...What makes the graphics of a game good? Polygon pushing prowess...Or artistic design and execution?
When you put games like Gran Tourismo, Killzone, Uncharted, Gears of War...All those high-def 1080p graphic games together...You get a lot of the same thing...Realism. That's great. But Realism is all around us. When you look back to the old-days of gaming..Like the NES or earlier..They didn't have stuff like today...The limitation of the technology was so weak...Everything was made up of such large pixels, you needed your imagination. And when I think of how the industry has grown over the years and generations...I've seen imagination go the way-side and be replaced with realism.
Don't get me wrong...I *love* games that push the boundaries. But I miss the imaginative aspect of graphics design. The way I see it...Kirby was the most deserving of the Best Graphics award...Mearly because the game was unique. Good-Feel and HAL Labs have treaded ground not travelled much. Sure, not like the Wii is capable of 360 and PS3 graphics, let alone the PC...But the creativity and imagination behind the title...The use of yarn as the building block of the entire world is unlike anything seen before. It's almost like the first time cell-shading was used..Or "hand-drawn" graphics with games like Drawn To Life. Photo-realism games are all the same...Sure they look different with different effects, designs, environments...But they're the same. Kirby and games like it step away from the norm and deliver us a kind of world we want to visit, and we're unfamiliar with.
Graphics aren't just the look of a game. Is how the world is presented before us. It's everything we see on the screen...Everything. Just because one game "looks" better than another doesn't mean the latter looks worse. People need to learn to stop thinking everything needs to look as good as it possibly can. Brown and grey equate to perfection. Why can't games bring back the colours of a young imagination? And when games actually do introduce the uniqueness...Why must they be patronized and insulted? Just because *you* don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good...Or special. If the visuals are fully realized and complete, or they blend together and things don't stand out for the worse; If the game runs at a perfect framerate no matter how much or how little is going on on screen; and if it looks as good as it possibly can look...Who are we to judge? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...But everyone can look good. If Kirby can take away best graphics awards for a yard based side-scroller...There must be something about it.
The same was said for The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker. Before that title was announced, we were teased with an amazing pre-rendered cinematic of Link fighting Ganon with amazing graphics for the time. We were so excited to get a zelda came that looked like that. Then the screenshots appeared for Windwaker and the 3D visuals were replaced with..Cell-Shading? What is this cartoony crap? Even I was guilty of thinking the visual leap that Nintendo was taking with this new Zelda was a mistake. But there was something always shouted from the Nintendo rooftops..."Don't judge it until you played it". So I did. And you know what? To this day (even with Twilight Princess having come and gone) I think Windwaker is the best looking Zelda in the entire series.
It just goes to show that you don't need to look *good* to look good. The developers that put the creativity in their game world...In their environments and character models are the ones who should get praise. Polyphony Digital should be proud of the look of Gran Tourismo 5...I have never seen anything like it before. The detail is incredible. But so should Good-Feel with Kirby. Both games push the boundaries of what they are trying to represent. Both games look down right beautiful. But both are incredibly different.
We are in an industry of creativity. And it should be rewarded no matter how it looks. Besides...I didn't hear anyone saying Okami looked like crap. It doesn't look like GT5 to me...
PDog
But that said...Why do people consider games like Mario Galaxy 2 and Okami to have "amazing graphics"?
I know that sounds like an asinine question..But when you compare a game like Super Mario Galaxy to Gran Tourismo 5...The graphical feat is pretty obvious. But the reason I ask that is because of this year's E3. I site I generally love visiting is over at Gametrailers.com, and their E3 awards are being distributed now. And guess which game won Best Graphics? Not Killzone or GT5...Or Crysis for that matter...But Kirby's Epic Yarn. A side-scrolling Kirby game made up of colourful yarn won the best graphics. But surely there were other games more deserving of the title, no?
They're not the only publication to think this either. I've seen it all over the web since the game was revealed. It really begs the question...What makes the graphics of a game good? Polygon pushing prowess...Or artistic design and execution?
When you put games like Gran Tourismo, Killzone, Uncharted, Gears of War...All those high-def 1080p graphic games together...You get a lot of the same thing...Realism. That's great. But Realism is all around us. When you look back to the old-days of gaming..Like the NES or earlier..They didn't have stuff like today...The limitation of the technology was so weak...Everything was made up of such large pixels, you needed your imagination. And when I think of how the industry has grown over the years and generations...I've seen imagination go the way-side and be replaced with realism.
Don't get me wrong...I *love* games that push the boundaries. But I miss the imaginative aspect of graphics design. The way I see it...Kirby was the most deserving of the Best Graphics award...Mearly because the game was unique. Good-Feel and HAL Labs have treaded ground not travelled much. Sure, not like the Wii is capable of 360 and PS3 graphics, let alone the PC...But the creativity and imagination behind the title...The use of yarn as the building block of the entire world is unlike anything seen before. It's almost like the first time cell-shading was used..Or "hand-drawn" graphics with games like Drawn To Life. Photo-realism games are all the same...Sure they look different with different effects, designs, environments...But they're the same. Kirby and games like it step away from the norm and deliver us a kind of world we want to visit, and we're unfamiliar with.
Graphics aren't just the look of a game. Is how the world is presented before us. It's everything we see on the screen...Everything. Just because one game "looks" better than another doesn't mean the latter looks worse. People need to learn to stop thinking everything needs to look as good as it possibly can. Brown and grey equate to perfection. Why can't games bring back the colours of a young imagination? And when games actually do introduce the uniqueness...Why must they be patronized and insulted? Just because *you* don't like it doesn't mean it isn't good...Or special. If the visuals are fully realized and complete, or they blend together and things don't stand out for the worse; If the game runs at a perfect framerate no matter how much or how little is going on on screen; and if it looks as good as it possibly can look...Who are we to judge? Beauty is in the eye of the beholder...But everyone can look good. If Kirby can take away best graphics awards for a yard based side-scroller...There must be something about it.
The same was said for The Legend of Zelda: Windwaker. Before that title was announced, we were teased with an amazing pre-rendered cinematic of Link fighting Ganon with amazing graphics for the time. We were so excited to get a zelda came that looked like that. Then the screenshots appeared for Windwaker and the 3D visuals were replaced with..Cell-Shading? What is this cartoony crap? Even I was guilty of thinking the visual leap that Nintendo was taking with this new Zelda was a mistake. But there was something always shouted from the Nintendo rooftops..."Don't judge it until you played it". So I did. And you know what? To this day (even with Twilight Princess having come and gone) I think Windwaker is the best looking Zelda in the entire series.
It just goes to show that you don't need to look *good* to look good. The developers that put the creativity in their game world...In their environments and character models are the ones who should get praise. Polyphony Digital should be proud of the look of Gran Tourismo 5...I have never seen anything like it before. The detail is incredible. But so should Good-Feel with Kirby. Both games push the boundaries of what they are trying to represent. Both games look down right beautiful. But both are incredibly different.
We are in an industry of creativity. And it should be rewarded no matter how it looks. Besides...I didn't hear anyone saying Okami looked like crap. It doesn't look like GT5 to me...
PDog
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)