What happens when graphics are so good they almost look realistic. Well this is what happened.
So I went to my local mall and they just put in a Microsoft Store. Being the fan of windows that I am, I decided I'd check it out. It was pretty cool, and they had on display an XBOX ONE demo on a 60 inch TV. Love them or hate them, admit it, you'd try out any console or PC if it was on a 60 inch TV. I have to say, the graphics are stunning. In fact, they're so good, they're absolutely terrible and hurt my eyes. So what do I mean by that? I'm talking about "The Uncanny Valley."
For those of you who don't know, the uncanny valley is "when human features look and move almost, but not exactly, like natural human beings, it causes a response of revulsion among human observers;" according to wikipedia. Basically, it means that, in terms of graphics, things look so good but since it isn't an actual video shot on a video camera, it looks terrible. You brain wants to think that it's real, but since there's subtle nuances that don't look real, you perceive it as ugly.
Now how does this relate to the XBOX ONE? Well as I said earlier, the graphics are amazing. These were like 1080p 60 FPS, or whatever. Everything moved so smoothly. Everything had such detail. However, because it still looked enough like a video game, the "hyper realistic" graphics confused my brain and I concluded that it looked terrible.
Now you PC gamers might be thinking "ha, console peasant, that's what you get for not using PC quality graphics." Well ya know what, I'd probably say the same thing about your precious PC graphics. My guess, they're even further down in the valley. "But...the resolution, the frame rate, the textures, they just look so amazing." Yes, and that's the point. They do look amazing, but the more amazing they look, the more off put I am because it still doesn't look like I'm playing real life. Keep your amazing graphics, I'll stick to "it looks so fake that it doesn't look bad."
Now wait, maybe I'm just being to hard on it. I mean I liked The Last of Us and that looked pretty real right? Well...not quite. With Last of Us, they were going for "realistic physics and animations," not "realistic looking visuals." The visuals, though striking with how well they captured human emotions and movements, wasn't trying to make Joel or Ellie look like actual humans, if you get what I'm saying. It looked like a really well done animated movie with a realistic art style, not an animated movie that put so much emphasis on trying to look like live action that it looked bad. It's hard to explain. Basically, it felt real without trying to look real.
I may just be old fashioned. Really, at the time of writing this, I only started gaming on an HDTV 2 years prior. Before then, I played on a 26 inch, 4:3 aspect ratio, tube TV. I still do when I play old school because the old consoles look bad on my HDTV, but that's a ramble for another day. It could have also been the TV. I know when I go to stores like Costco or Sears, they have a movie playing and the TV has a smoothing effect that like adds more frames or something. I don't really know how it works, but I know it makes the movie look like the foreground is completely separate from the back ground and things don't move right. More uncanny valley right there. But it really could be that 1080p 60 fps just looks bad. Well this has been happy gamer and you can keep your ugly 60 frames per second, 1080p resolution. I'll stick with 720p 30 fps where things aren't in the uncanny valley.
PS: As for the rest of the XBOX, I'm very meh. The controller does feel really nice. The interface kind of sucks. They didn't have the Kinect on, but that things just looks terrible. I wouldn't be caught dead with that sitting on my TV stand simply because it looks bad. The UI felt very gimped without the Kinect. I played Forza 5, did not like the physics. The game was in manual. Turning was way to complicated I kept hitting the wall. I am not impressed.
Friday, December 20, 2013
Saturday, November 23, 2013
Happy Gamer, I don't like PC elitists and their arguments.
Fanboys suck, and most of the time, they're ridiculous arguments get refuted easily because of how bad they are. But PC elitist fanboys don't seem to get refuted so easily. Well, here's my rebuttal.
Greetings world. Like many of my ramblings, this started in google plus. This time, it was one of my friends making a comment about how I bash PC gaming mainly saying "I like console gaming, but at the moment, PC is just easier on the budget." Well, here's my rambling response. Enjoy the rant.
If done properly, that may be true. You're a computer guy though, so you know
all the things that are required to make certain games run. My guess is
you built your own computer from scratch, and if not initially, you did
through a number of different upgrades that you essentially built your
computer. Me, I just have my standard issue HP laptop and desktop tower.
My brother played various different PC games on the desktop and they
suffered super frame rate drop due to compatibility issues. I've tried
playing some PC exclusives like Mighty Quest For Epic Loot and had loads of frame drops and
overheating. Personally, I'll pay a little extra to make sure that
there's no compatibility issues and the ability to proudly display my
physical collection. Plus, though I haven't crunched the numbers, in the
long run I'm pretty sure console gaming is cheaper if done right, and legally. Pirated games don't count as "cheaper," and I've heard
people say "well PC games are so much cheaper because it's so much
easier to pirate them." Doesn't count. Everything is "cheaper" when you steal it. Piracy is bad, don't do it.
My main beef with PC
gaming is the PC elitist fanboys who are all "PC is the master race; my
gaming machine makes the games for your gaming machine; the graphics,
framerate, and mouse and keyboard controls are so much better; hail
valve."
1. Mouse and keyboard being better than controller is just an
opinion. Some games like Roller Coaster Tycoon, Sims City, Myst, and
other point and clicks are better with mouse and keyboard, but
platformers, my favorite genera, suck with mouse and keyboard and are
better with controllers.
2. Graphics and framerate don't really matter
so long as they aren't so bad that they impede gameplay. Framerate and
graphics being so bad they impede gameplay has happened, but I've only
ever really seen it happen on PC due to compatibility issues and rarely
on consoles because every unit of that console is almost identical and
the devs know that and work within the parameters of the hardware.
3. As
for the "my machine makes the games for your machine," yeah and my
professor taught your professor, but your professor doesn't have a hard
to understand accent. I don't see how that's a reason to chose the
accent over native English. To each his own, but when I get the chance
to point out PC fanboy misinformation, I do.
Plus, if steam sales are what makes PC gaming cheap, I play the "used games" card, where the games are equally discounted.
If you like to play on PC, I don't care. My issue is the PC elitists that ridicule anyone who plays on consoles. Fanboys suck. They make everyone else in the fandom look bad. Don't fanboy. Happy gamer signing off, and don't be a fanboy.
Thursday, October 17, 2013
A second look at "day 1" DLC
I used to hate "day 1" DLC, but now I'm looking at things slightly differently.
So I was watching "Address the Sess" from Rev3 gaming and Adam Sessler and he brought up an interesting fact about "day 1" DLC, something I haven't thought about.
Now if you don't know, I am very critical of "day 1" DLC, and so you know, "day 1" DLC doesn't necessarily have to be released on the day the game is released. I consider DLC "day 1" if it was developed along side the game specifically intended to not be released as part of the full game. I am very critical of this because from companies like Capcom, it's used to nickel and dime the consumer and try to capitalize on used games. My argument, "the game wouldn't end up on a gamestop shelf if you give the consumer more bang for their buck and deliver a game that is worth $70 and only charge them $60, instead of selling $50 worth of content for $60 and then selling the other $20 worth of content to them for $20 and calling it 'DLC.'" That right there goes against all marketing logic according to my into to marketing class, and is a primary reason why Capcom is close to dead. The other reason is "no love for the blue bomber," but that's not what this is about.
Anyways, Sessler brought up a good point about DLC and game prices. In the US, new game prices are fairly fixed at $60. In other countries and regions, game prices are a lot more varied. However, if you release a game for more than $60, "well that's crazy, I won't buy it." His example was Skyrim. I haven't played it yet so I can't speak from experience, but I plan to eventually. Anyways, Sessler said that "a game like Skyrim, it's easily worth $100, so I wouldn't mind paying more for more, but because of game prices, it needs to be $60, so they cut out $30 worth of content, sell you the $30 worth as DLC, and you still get an awesome game."
I gotta admit, I haven't really thought of it that way. Not everyone who does "day 1" DLC is being Capcom and EA about it, where "oh we need to send updates and patches and maintain the online servers, and developing the game is just so expensive, and with used games not giving us money for the sale, we need to get the money somehow." Sometimes, game developers make a game that's worth $100 or more, but because of the market price for all new games is semificially $60, they have to cut out some so they aren't undervaluing their games. Sure I'd love to get $100 worth of content for $60, who wouldn't. Well not the developers. I know if I made a game that I know was worth $100, I wouldn't want to give it to people for $60 right from the start. I'm undervaluing my game by 40%. After a year, sure, knock 40% off, let me get some of the hold outs, but not from the start. However, the US game market dictates that "New games are $60, no exceptions, unless it's under $60." And I'm not saying "I put so much work and time and effort that I deserve $100 for this game even though it's only objectively worth $50," I mean actual "this game is so objectively good, I would be practically giving it away at $60." So yes, I see where some developers are coming from.
However, this still troubles me, because even though they are selling you maybe a little over $60 worth of content after the DLC cuts, I'm still bothered by the fact that part of the game was cut out and is released as DLC. I'd rather pay more in the first place and not have to buy it later primarily because of future gamers who weren't able to get the consoles when they were initially released.
I 20 years old at the time of posting. I have an Atari 2600 that I bought at a garage sale. My Atari is probably older than I am. I can still buy games for it, thanks to used games, and I can expect to get the full game when I buy the cartridges. 25 years later, what about the guy that find an XBOX 360 at a garage sale and want to collect retro XBOX 360 games? Servers for online PS2 games released 12 years ago are already gone. Servers for XBOX Live for 360 and PSN for PS3 aren't going to be up forever. In 20-30 years, I expect DLC support for XBOX 360 and PS3 to be gone. How will future generations enjoy the full game once the servers are no longer supported? Emulators? *raspberry fart* Emulators are stupid and only cheaters use emulators. Real gaming is done on the original console, with the original controller and original game cartridge/disk. HD remakes/virtual console releases? That might work for some games, but not every game gets a remake/re-release. Of all the amazing games released on the NES, SNES, N64, Master System, Genesis, Atari, etc, I'm going to guess that maybe 15-20% have had re-releases. So the only way to get those gems is by buying the used cartridges/disks. I pity the future generations of gamers who won't be able to enjoy the full games because of DLC.
Well that's enough rambling for today. Until next time, game and be happy.
So I was watching "Address the Sess" from Rev3 gaming and Adam Sessler and he brought up an interesting fact about "day 1" DLC, something I haven't thought about.
Now if you don't know, I am very critical of "day 1" DLC, and so you know, "day 1" DLC doesn't necessarily have to be released on the day the game is released. I consider DLC "day 1" if it was developed along side the game specifically intended to not be released as part of the full game. I am very critical of this because from companies like Capcom, it's used to nickel and dime the consumer and try to capitalize on used games. My argument, "the game wouldn't end up on a gamestop shelf if you give the consumer more bang for their buck and deliver a game that is worth $70 and only charge them $60, instead of selling $50 worth of content for $60 and then selling the other $20 worth of content to them for $20 and calling it 'DLC.'" That right there goes against all marketing logic according to my into to marketing class, and is a primary reason why Capcom is close to dead. The other reason is "no love for the blue bomber," but that's not what this is about.
Anyways, Sessler brought up a good point about DLC and game prices. In the US, new game prices are fairly fixed at $60. In other countries and regions, game prices are a lot more varied. However, if you release a game for more than $60, "well that's crazy, I won't buy it." His example was Skyrim. I haven't played it yet so I can't speak from experience, but I plan to eventually. Anyways, Sessler said that "a game like Skyrim, it's easily worth $100, so I wouldn't mind paying more for more, but because of game prices, it needs to be $60, so they cut out $30 worth of content, sell you the $30 worth as DLC, and you still get an awesome game."
I gotta admit, I haven't really thought of it that way. Not everyone who does "day 1" DLC is being Capcom and EA about it, where "oh we need to send updates and patches and maintain the online servers, and developing the game is just so expensive, and with used games not giving us money for the sale, we need to get the money somehow." Sometimes, game developers make a game that's worth $100 or more, but because of the market price for all new games is semificially $60, they have to cut out some so they aren't undervaluing their games. Sure I'd love to get $100 worth of content for $60, who wouldn't. Well not the developers. I know if I made a game that I know was worth $100, I wouldn't want to give it to people for $60 right from the start. I'm undervaluing my game by 40%. After a year, sure, knock 40% off, let me get some of the hold outs, but not from the start. However, the US game market dictates that "New games are $60, no exceptions, unless it's under $60." And I'm not saying "I put so much work and time and effort that I deserve $100 for this game even though it's only objectively worth $50," I mean actual "this game is so objectively good, I would be practically giving it away at $60." So yes, I see where some developers are coming from.
However, this still troubles me, because even though they are selling you maybe a little over $60 worth of content after the DLC cuts, I'm still bothered by the fact that part of the game was cut out and is released as DLC. I'd rather pay more in the first place and not have to buy it later primarily because of future gamers who weren't able to get the consoles when they were initially released.
I 20 years old at the time of posting. I have an Atari 2600 that I bought at a garage sale. My Atari is probably older than I am. I can still buy games for it, thanks to used games, and I can expect to get the full game when I buy the cartridges. 25 years later, what about the guy that find an XBOX 360 at a garage sale and want to collect retro XBOX 360 games? Servers for online PS2 games released 12 years ago are already gone. Servers for XBOX Live for 360 and PSN for PS3 aren't going to be up forever. In 20-30 years, I expect DLC support for XBOX 360 and PS3 to be gone. How will future generations enjoy the full game once the servers are no longer supported? Emulators? *raspberry fart* Emulators are stupid and only cheaters use emulators. Real gaming is done on the original console, with the original controller and original game cartridge/disk. HD remakes/virtual console releases? That might work for some games, but not every game gets a remake/re-release. Of all the amazing games released on the NES, SNES, N64, Master System, Genesis, Atari, etc, I'm going to guess that maybe 15-20% have had re-releases. So the only way to get those gems is by buying the used cartridges/disks. I pity the future generations of gamers who won't be able to enjoy the full games because of DLC.
Well that's enough rambling for today. Until next time, game and be happy.
Greetings Gamers
I'm tired of Pokematic and Catholiccontriversy getting their own places and I'm stuck sharing with them with no place to call my own, so I'm making a place to call my own.
Hey eveyone, Happy Gamer here, and for those of you who don't know me, well blame Pokematic and Catholiccontriversy. For about 3 years now, Catholiccontriversy and Pokematic have had their own private sections of the internet. Catholiccontriversy has youtube, Pokematic has metacafe and his adventure blog, but I've been forced to share Dailymotion and the video site with them with no place to call my own. Sure, it didn't help that I wasn't creating content, but maybe I would have if I had a place to call my own.
Well, welcome to my tree house. Here' it's only me, Happy Gamer. Maybe I'll let Catholiccontriversy and Pokematic make cameos like they let me do at their places, but here's my spot. Mine.
So what am I going to post you may ask. Well one thing I've found myself doing on Google Plus is posting these long winded ramblings that just seem to go on forever. I don't know how well they're received by my friends, but I know I fall subject to "to long, didn't read" when browsing G+. So, to clean up my friend's feeds, I'm now going to be posting those long winded posts here. I hope you enjoy.
Well this has been Happy Gamer signing off. Game on and have fun. (I'm thinking about changing my sign off. I'll be posting new attempts until I find something I like.)
Hey eveyone, Happy Gamer here, and for those of you who don't know me, well blame Pokematic and Catholiccontriversy. For about 3 years now, Catholiccontriversy and Pokematic have had their own private sections of the internet. Catholiccontriversy has youtube, Pokematic has metacafe and his adventure blog, but I've been forced to share Dailymotion and the video site with them with no place to call my own. Sure, it didn't help that I wasn't creating content, but maybe I would have if I had a place to call my own.
Well, welcome to my tree house. Here' it's only me, Happy Gamer. Maybe I'll let Catholiccontriversy and Pokematic make cameos like they let me do at their places, but here's my spot. Mine.
So what am I going to post you may ask. Well one thing I've found myself doing on Google Plus is posting these long winded ramblings that just seem to go on forever. I don't know how well they're received by my friends, but I know I fall subject to "to long, didn't read" when browsing G+. So, to clean up my friend's feeds, I'm now going to be posting those long winded posts here. I hope you enjoy.
Well this has been Happy Gamer signing off. Game on and have fun. (I'm thinking about changing my sign off. I'll be posting new attempts until I find something I like.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)