This sort of thing is what I was thinking about coming in, that trailers/cut scenes have huge advantages over gameplay ‘look’ in terms of having to only show one basic sequence instead of responding to changes, in terms of being able to throw MUCH more elaborate hardware at the problem and take more time in the processing, that I think the only way the two will ever match is as a ‘what you see is what you get’ marketing stunt.
That is, as long as the game designers think that they can sell more games by making the trailer look glitzier, they’re going to do it. The expense that costs them wouldn’t be much of a drop in the bucket compared to what it takes to actually make gameplay look a little better.
Of course, all of this is a WAG, and I’m not even much of a gamer at all.
Trailers like that make me sad for how much Ep 1-3 sucked.
A bit of a tangent, but I think the graphics for videogames are basically “good enough”. Not that I think they should stop improving them as technology improves. I just think that more effort and resources should go into things like the AI and environment engines.
Nonsense. You’d just get a WWII FPS with lush environments and great AI.
Don’t confuse technological advances with game design advances. The games with the best design are often well behind the bleeding edge technologically.
Games like Fallout 3 and GTA4 and even Dead Rising are good like that. They create a sandbox world where you can wander around and whatever actions you take effect how the story unfolds. I thought Dead Rising particularly interesting because everything was time driven. It creates a sense of urgency and you can’t do everything or save everyone in one game.
FarCry 2 failed for me in sense this because while it was visually appealing, I had no particular sense that anything I did mattered. It was all “drive around Africa asaulting the same checkpoints over and over again.”