My first thought was "JUST REMAKE THE DAMNED THING!" but then I thought... Actually it's probably a better idea not to. They should just make a game that's better. I think what we REALLY want is just to re-experience the grand scale of the world, the materia system, those annoying encounters with f&*%king Yuffie, etc. Not the EXACT same thing, but something similar.
What about a parallel story within the same universe? Surely that would deliver a consistently similar experience while having enough leeway to create a unique story.
LMFAO. This is one of the funniest videos I've seen on GS.
Dev: "Are we supposed to make a game that's not fun and people don't enjoy?"
Journalist: "Yes!"
...It's an entertainment industry. Devs need to make ENTERTAINING products to sale. It's an adaptive business model, but that's a fact that will never change. I'm in the music industry and it's no different. You can incorporate live instruments and unique orchestration, etc. into your music, but if it doesn't ENTERTAIN, it's worthless. The average client doesn't care about tiny details or realism in a product that's expected to entertain, hence the success of COD.
@SangheliZealotX That's EXACTLY what I thought. I couldn't believe that people say an improvement. The architectural style of the environment is terrible and further conveys how bad the graphics are.
They're going to do what's most profitable. The end. They're the juxtaposition of Valve. Valve doesn't give a piss about the money, they'll make sure their product is polished to the bone and it lives up the expected standards.
IW/Trey/Acti will do whatever is most efficient and profitable. Why create a new engine when they can just tweak it and people will buy it? A new engine takes allot of work. Many devs don't even use their own because it'll add years to the release date.
Like a previous commentor said, it takes visual sacrafice to get 60 FPS. Anyone who's played Quake 3 competitively knows that we'll strip the game to the point of looking like a 1983 tech demo in order to get the right framerate (and a visual advantage of course). Looking at it like that, I respect that. But then again it's 2012.. We tend to want our cake and want to eat it too nowadays.
I think it comes down the fact that M$ has American roots which leads to games like Halo, while Sony has Japanese roots, where they tend to emphasize story a little more (Final Fantasy). We've seen how the Xbox emphasized shooters (Gears of War, Halo) while the Playstation emphasized platformers (Jack and Dexter, Ratchet and Clank, etc.). Each system has their reputation, thus attracting a certain kind of person.
As far as the PS3 attracting more adults.. that's definately not true IMO. Look at Little Big Planet and the platformers like Spyro and Crash Bandicoot. I played that stuff as a kid, but it doesn't really phase me now. I assume many feel the same. Sony is known for having mostly rated E and T platformers, while M$ is known for having rate M shooters. Let's put aside the fact that most 12 year olds can probably get their hands on an M game.
There still seems to be a false perception of causality vs. correlation in the article. Artistic exclusives are most likely to be coded for PS3. To say that 360 owners aren't artistic because of that doesn't quite make sense. How about someone release something artistic on the 360 and see how it sales? The only way to see is to compare an "artistic" multiplatform game's sales between both systems. I don't care enough to do it myself, but if that were presented as evidence in this article, I'd be more easily persuaded.
I got my 20gb phat Xbox 360 on ebay for $102 including shipping 2 years ago. Add 2 wireless controllers to that for $40 bucks. $140 and you're ready to go. If you want to live luxeriously, wait a couple years and find your item on ebay. It'll be dirt cheap.
I hope you guys are joking when you say Halo 1 PC looked better. I don't remember seeing textures, lighting or geometry that was as complex as those in Reach. The only advantage that Halo 1 PC had was a higher resolution. Crispy edges don't help crappy textures. That's why low resolutions can look better with the right textures. There wasn't even any anti-aliasing. Halo 1 PC was just a port of the Xbox version. But to the point: We sure set our standards pretty high nowadays, but I won't call these graphics garbage. Still shots can't really dictate the final visual quality of the game, only an uncompressed video could. We don't play sideshows. We play at 60fps, I would hope. I've noticed that sometimes the screenshots are crappy but the running game looks nice. I hope you guys realize that half of these screenshots are zoomed in. Considering that, I would say these are decent graphics.
thphaca's comments