<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Have we got it wrong with graphics?</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/</link>
	<description>A veteran's view on marketing games</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:07:25 -0800</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: yg</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/comment-page-1/#comment-689</link>
		<dc:creator>yg</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 11:19:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/#comment-689</guid>
		<description>Short answer to the question - yes. 

Although, in many ways it&#039;s like saying that movie industry got it wrong with CG special effects.

I personally think that the jump to HD was the single determental step this gen. The gfx chips, CPU and memory are very powerfull now and would have been more than enough for graphics and the extra power would push the bounderies many times over in other gameplay aspects. If it wasnt for HD (which essentially is quadruppling the pixels on screen) it might have been a different story.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Short answer to the question &#8211; yes. </p>
<p>Although, in many ways it&#8217;s like saying that movie industry got it wrong with CG special effects.</p>
<p>I personally think that the jump to HD was the single determental step this gen. The gfx chips, CPU and memory are very powerfull now and would have been more than enough for graphics and the extra power would push the bounderies many times over in other gameplay aspects. If it wasnt for HD (which essentially is quadruppling the pixels on screen) it might have been a different story.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JC Barnett</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/comment-page-1/#comment-687</link>
		<dc:creator>JC Barnett</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 05 Jan 2008 09:46:11 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/#comment-687</guid>
		<description>It&#039;s incorrect to equate naming one&#039;s favourite games as oldies to meaning graphics don&#039;t matter. More often than not replaying these oldies is a chore, and then suddenly graphics, as well as controls, DO matter. And the current crop of games is too recent to have a measurable lasting effect. I&#039;m pretty sure there will be young adults in the next decade who will fondly look back on Portal as their favourite game of all time.

I do agree, though, that graphics, though important, should not be the number 1 focus of hardware and software developers. But any &quot;back in the good old days&quot; musing is really not part of the issue.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It&#8217;s incorrect to equate naming one&#8217;s favourite games as oldies to meaning graphics don&#8217;t matter. More often than not replaying these oldies is a chore, and then suddenly graphics, as well as controls, DO matter. And the current crop of games is too recent to have a measurable lasting effect. I&#8217;m pretty sure there will be young adults in the next decade who will fondly look back on Portal as their favourite game of all time.</p>
<p>I do agree, though, that graphics, though important, should not be the number 1 focus of hardware and software developers. But any &#8220;back in the good old days&#8221; musing is really not part of the issue.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: S Pampel</title>
		<link>http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/comment-page-1/#comment-683</link>
		<dc:creator>S Pampel</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 04 Jan 2008 15:46:13 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.bruceongames.com/2008/01/03/have-we-got-it-wrong-with-graphics/#comment-683</guid>
		<description>Although nothing new, this is absolutely correct.
I often think gameplay is only important to us more mature gamers who have seen video games develop over the last 20 plus years, and that the younger generation are more superficial, with graphics being most important to them (ala the bubble gum MTV generation).
I think I am mistaken.
The Wii has obviously demonstrated otherwise, but I myself have been amazed this xmas period when talking with younger gamers just how excited they are about the Wii - the fact that you can swing a pretend racket to hit a virtual ball is much more exciting to them than the lastest advancements in graphical prowess.
This is not to suggest all games on the Wii have better gameplay than 360 / PS3 (of course not!) but does show how a new gaming mechanic demonstrated by the Wii has captured the imaginations of the mass market much more than next generation graphics can hope to.
This next comment may sound contradictory, but personally I prefer the more hardcore oriented platforms (ie 360) as I actually believe the quality of game play on such games on offer is superior to the Wii (and not because of the graphics), but because of other improvements offered by next gen consoles such as better computer AI, not to mention online gaming etc plus the fact I still prefer a traditional controller for most games.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Although nothing new, this is absolutely correct.<br />
I often think gameplay is only important to us more mature gamers who have seen video games develop over the last 20 plus years, and that the younger generation are more superficial, with graphics being most important to them (ala the bubble gum MTV generation).<br />
I think I am mistaken.<br />
The Wii has obviously demonstrated otherwise, but I myself have been amazed this xmas period when talking with younger gamers just how excited they are about the Wii &#8211; the fact that you can swing a pretend racket to hit a virtual ball is much more exciting to them than the lastest advancements in graphical prowess.<br />
This is not to suggest all games on the Wii have better gameplay than 360 / PS3 (of course not!) but does show how a new gaming mechanic demonstrated by the Wii has captured the imaginations of the mass market much more than next generation graphics can hope to.<br />
This next comment may sound contradictory, but personally I prefer the more hardcore oriented platforms (ie 360) as I actually believe the quality of game play on such games on offer is superior to the Wii (and not because of the graphics), but because of other improvements offered by next gen consoles such as better computer AI, not to mention online gaming etc plus the fact I still prefer a traditional controller for most games.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
