| Leon Dexter 2004-09-30, 12:53 am |
| "Ted" <nospamforted@nospam.com> wrote in message
quote:
> That's dependent on the consumers buying those games. The trouble is,
> many gamers in the US take graphics as a proxy for the overall goodness
> of a game before they play it. Most of the uncomplicated graphic games
> that have been hits recently in the US that I can think of have been
> from known companies, who have a reputation to work as a proxy for
> goodness in the absence of complicated graphics (namely Nintendo). So
> while Nintendo is free to make games based on gameplay, new or newer
> companies may not have the same luxury. And of course established
> companies with large warchests will be able to make graphically
> complicated games to draw player dollars to them and away from the less
> complicated games. If there are still enough graphically complicated
> games around, ti could squeeze the smaller companies out of existence.
> It might also reach an equilibrium before that happens, but it's still a
possibility.
Sure, there will be plenty of games with excellent graphics, but there will
be games without them, too--no different than now. And they will both have
their chances to sell. The single best-selling game of this
generation--Grand Theft Auto III--quite frankly, looked like shit. It was
not the worst-looking game out there, but it sure didn't sell on the
strength of its graphics. Nor was it from a big-name publisher.
And that's still ignoring that it simply is not that hard to have decent
graphics, nor is it going to be. They've been modelling graphics as good or
better than the next gen will do for years.
|