http://au.ps3.ign.com/articles/791/791533p2.html

dayum!

sweet

ehh... that indoor screenshot looked like crap

I'm no techincal expert, but the picture looked pretty good to me. Definately an upgrade over the last game.

especially when you consider there is no load time for that indoor shot. You just walk in a building and there it is.

I'm no techincal expert, but the picture looked pretty good to me. Definately an upgrade over the last game.


Well the last game was horrible as well graphicswise, but it's what 6 years old or so? My concern is that a lot of those pictures don't look like they're from a game coming out in the year 2007/2008, rather something from 2005-2006.

It's in game.

Ok people look way too much into graphics. Yes they look pretty and make games look awsome but there are plenty of games that have top of the line graphics that I wouldn't touch because the game-play sucks.

My point is don't look to much into graphics they don't make they game........gameplay makes a game what it is.

Ok people look way too much into graphics. Yes they look pretty and make games look awsome but there are plenty of games that have top of the line graphics that I wouldn't touch because the game-play sucks.
halo

Ok people look way too much into graphics. Yes they look pretty and make games look awsome but there are plenty of games that have top of the line graphics that I wouldn't touch because the game-play sucks.

My point is don't look to much into graphics they don't make they game........gameplay makes a game what it is.

It's more to do with the true next gen look that a lot of games lack right now.

I mean if it were 3 years from now and every game had that true look then I doubt it would be much of an issue.

Ok people look way too much into graphics. Yes they look pretty and make games look awsome but there are plenty of games that have top of the line graphics that I wouldn't touch because the game-play sucks.

My point is don't look to much into graphics they don't make they game........gameplay makes a game what it is.
i couldnt agree more, some of the best games have some of the worst graphics, and its pathetic that people wont buy some games just because of the graphics if its fun then why does it matter so much

and i also dont see what is soo great about GTA, its the same thing over and over again, the real game to get is Crackdown, that is sooo much more fun than GTA ever was

My point is don't look to much into graphics they don't make they game........gameplay makes a game what it is.

Well, for the next generation of consoles, I'd say that graphics do matter quite a lot. It's a logical reasoning to expect a considerable improvement in the graphics department with much better hardware available. Plus, the video game industry is currently making tons of money. Many game development companies have more than enough resources to create exceptional games if they really want to. So, I don't see why we cannot expect games with top notch graphics and excellent gameplay, instead of only getting one of the two.

More importantly, however, is the fact that you are now paying $400/$600 bucks for a game console and $10 more for a game. So, why should I pay $60 for a game that looks the same or worse than a $50 game on a $100 game console?

Plus, the video game industry is currently making tons of money. Many game development companies have more than enough resources to create exceptional games if they really want to.

Well one of the main problems is that publishers take home the majority of the money, which, imo, is why you only see good games from companies with their own in-house publishing (EA being the exception that confirms the rule) and truly indie developers who aren't hogtied by a publishing company (like Bioware).

I think they overplan. And they get caught up marketing a game that is not ready for distribution. So they either have to eat the cost or publish a crap game early. Instead, what they ought to do, is hold off on the marketing and distribution until the game is done. Then price the game accordingly. I think consumers would be willing to pay more for a better game. In the game industy, consumers only buy the best game in a genre, so it can work. If you take an extra year and charge me 75$ for a 10.0 game. I'll pay it. Or even better, double your staff and charge $100 for a 10.0 game on a regular production shedule. I don't care. I just want to play good games. Everybody does, which is why we only buy the best game in each genre. I think exceptional games should be the rule, and not the exception. But obviously, it has to be profitable for everyone, including the publishers who front the money.

Well one of the main problems is that publishers take home the majority of the money, which, imo, is why you only see good games from companies with their own in-house publishing (EA being the exception that confirms the rule) and truly indie developers who aren't hogtied by a publishing company (like Bioware).

It's really hard to blame a company like EA for... lets say for just adding a couple of new animations and features to each new version of a game like Madden, when there are a bunch of people lining up to buy it every year. Tell EA why they should spend more time and money trying to really improve a game that will still sell regardless of the lack of those improvements. So, who's to blame? EA for making virtually the same game every year or the gamer for buying virtually the same game every year? Gamers do have the last word, since they decide whether to buy a game or not. Thus my comment about how we as gamers shouldn't expect anything less that stellar graphics and gameplay for the next generation of games, and not simply being conformed with crappy graphics and great gameplay, or vice versa.

and i also dont see what is soo great about GTA, its the same thing over and over again, the real game to get is Crackdown, that is sooo much more fun than GTA ever was
The first 2 versions of GTA are NOTHING like III and San Andreas. They'll bring a large switch once again for a new generation. And you'll love it.

It's really hard to blame a company like EA for... lets say for just adding a couple of new animations and features to each new version of a game like Madden, when there are a bunch of people lining up to buy it every year.

Well, some may think that way, but I personally don't condone it when people or companies do the bare minimum that is required of them, regardless of the situation.

The first 2 versions of GTA are NOTHING like III and San Andreas. They'll bring a large switch once again for a new generation. And you'll love it.
Crackdown >>>>> GTA

thats just how it is, its soo much more fun and u dont even have to have cheats to make crackdown fun

The only reason people played crackdown was because of gamer points. The rest of the game was hot steamy garbage. All the enemies were the same. The only fun part was exploring and getting your agility up. No story, no plot, nothing interesting.
I was very disappointed in it. BUT that's my opinion. Some people may have enjoyed it.

who cheats to make any game fun?

Look up cheats in google, and you'll get an idea.

the only way that i ever got any fun out of GTA was when i put cheats in to get the guns and crap like that... the only problem that i have with these games is that its hard to really memorize where everything is

If you go to break.com and type in GTA, they had a video preview of it a couple months ago, and it looked incredible

Is this Michael Griffin lol?

http://xbox360media.ign.com/xbox360/image/article/791/791511/grand-theft-auto-iv-20070524093325167-000.jpg

http://a906.ac-images.myspacecdn.com/images01/11/l_cc5a1a50f700574bc137111d4f03f269.jpg

Well, some may think that way, but I personally don't condone it when people or companies do the bare minimum that is required of them, regardless of the situation.

Required? You are making it sound as if EA is obligated by law to make quality games, when in fact they are just a company providing a service - just like any other company. It's up to you to decide whether you want to use their service or not, or in other words, buy their game or not buy it.

Required? You are making it sound as if EA is obligated by law to make quality games, when in fact they are just a company providing a service - just like any other company. It's up to you to decide whether you want to use their service or not, or in other words, buy their game or not buy it.

I used the word required because I was talking about all kinds of business, not just videogames. I could have used the word expected instead if that makes it different.

And you're right I can choose to not buy it and I haven't bought a Madden game since 2001, however that doesn't mean I can't point out that EA are slacking because they managed to monopolize the market or try to persuade other people not to waste their money on a subpar product.

I used the word required because I was talking about all kinds of business, not just videogames. I could have used the word expected instead if that makes it different.

And you're right I can choose to not buy it and I haven't bought a Madden game since 2001, however that doesn't mean I can't point out that EA are slacking because they managed to monopolize the market or try to persuade other people not to waste their money on a subpar product.

Required, expected, wanted... it's pretty much the same thing here. As a private business, you don't have to improve a mediocre product if you don't want to, just don't expect people to buy it... unless you are EA and you are making a certain video game.

And no one said that you cannot voice your opinion, I don't know where that came from. The point is that Madden's lack of progress is directly related to the huge amount of gamers that buy it every year, thus EA doesn't feel like doing any drastic changes to the game... more like an 'if it's not broken, don't fix it' attitude. That is true for many other games out there.

IGN's How to Kill a Franchise (http://insider.ign.com/articles/796/796220p2.html) makes a good point...


The Madden series is a hot topic every year because fan boys love to point out that the new game doesn't bring anything earth-shattering to the table. "It's only a roster update!" the forums constantly proclaim when a new Madden hits the streets, and most years it seems like they're right. Madden Football has become so formulaic over the years, yet we as gamers need only point the finger at ourselves for the downturn in pigskin quality. It seems like every fall Madden tops the sales charts, no matter how many hardcore fans stand on the soap boxes proclaiming that the game delivers nothing new.

Possibly the biggest element to aid in the slaying of Madden Football was the exclusivity deal that dropped in 2005. Basically it freed EA from having to compete with 2K Sports, thus removing the pressure of developing new features every year. Remember when 2K made an attempt at first-person football? Did it work? Nope. Was it a great thing to at least try? Absolutely. Now EA doesn't need to worry about competing with anyone. They set the bar, no matter how low that bar may be.