If the game industry is expecting the "wow power" of sizzling graphics to fuel next-generation game sales, they ought to think again. Having walked the aisles of last week's E3 trade show, Jason Rubin proclaimed the transition to Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 (PS3) games the "beginning of the end of cool graphics as the primary driver of video game purchases." Rubin was formerly co-president of developer Naughty Dog, best known for the award-winning "Crash Bandicoot" and "Jak and Daxter" series. Now he is president of recently formed entertainment company MorganRose, a member of the advisory board of the Game Developers Conference, and a frequent speaker at industry gatherings. HollywoodReporter.com columnist Paul Hyman had Rubin de-brief him on his three days at E3, and the always-opinionated Rubin graciously complied with his thoughts on why he's finding next-gen ho-hum, how publishers may be getting smarter about licensed IP, and the buzz at the show from developers.

Worth reading if you're interested in what's going on behind the scenes in the game industry.

View: Full Article @ The Hollywood Reporter

l;k'/kl;


There are 16 additional comments
Advertisement
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #1 Posted by perochan on 02 Jun 2005 - 10:21
I agreed. Graphic is not everything, it is the content! Thats the reason why PS are so successful.

but whoever jumps out 1st doesnt mean it will be sucessful.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #2 Posted by Lexcyn on 02 Jun 2005 - 11:38
Yeah, I agree as well. Flashy graphics are one thing, but came content is a whole other story. Judging by a lot of the games that are coming out now adays, I think developers really need to focus more on content rather than graphics.
(5 replies) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #3 Posted by Dirtie on 02 Jun 2005 - 11:53
And that's why Nintendo will pwn!
Quote this comment #3.1 Posted by JayZJay on 02 Jun 2005 - 12:04
don't make stupid comments that provide no supporting evidence. Go back to the hole you crawled out of and do some research.
Quote this comment #3.2 Posted by Dale on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:33
Nintendo said they intend to support smaller groups. Reggie said that these systems are so advanced that it would take groups of 100 or so to create games. Reggie said not all companys can afford groups of 100 people to make games with them.

THis is where the Revolution comes in. Reggie said that the revolution intends to help the smaller groups of lets say.. 10 people. He said that he understands they got an idea but they just can't get their idea out because they don't have the money.

The revolution will support the new ideas for these groups of people who want to create great games. But don't have great budgets.

This tactic will hopefully help Nintendo gain more 3rd party support and bring new companys into the gaming industry.

Is this a good enough explanation?
Quote this comment #3.3 Posted by jmole on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:47
You should read this article on Slashdot: Link

It is about the making of Super Mario Brothers 3. One of the greatest games of all time was made by TEN people over a two year span. Its pretty funny that some of the best games of all time were not created by hundreds, but only by a few people.
Quote this comment #3.4 Posted by King Raa on 02 Jun 2005 - 14:29
I think Darwinia was made by 8 or 10 people.
Considering thats a beautiful modern original strategy game, well played to the developers.

And as my ICT teacher taught these 2 guys that are now in something like blink or blitz games when they were younger - I read their article, and it was like the 2 of them making games in 4-6 month periods in the early 80s...

The dev numbers have increased as demand for music / graphics / size etc have increased...
Quote this comment #3.5 Posted by Dodgy on 02 Jun 2005 - 15:14
QUOTE
Nintendo said they intend to support smaller groups. Reggie said that these systems are so advanced that it would take groups of 100 or so to create games. Reggie said not all companys can afford groups of 100 people to make games with them.


So theoretically, EA are 1 of the few companies that will b able to produce games worthy of the graphics of Xbox 360 & PS3. what a load of poo they're gonna be...

i want my Revolution
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #4 Posted by Grahnman on 02 Jun 2005 - 12:53
Very interesting interview. Make the developers feel like artists again! Evil publishers...
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #5 Posted by Epimetheus on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:03
Nintendos been saying this for years, I don't believe people have ignored them them and now only are saying "Hey, wait a second!".
(1 reply) Quote this comment Reply to this comment #6 Posted by jmole on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:04
I agree, I think developers are focusing too much on graphics and less on the other aspects of the game they should be focusing the most on.

As much as I hate to say this, I think a prime example of this would be Square-Enix. With the last two games, Final Fantasy X and Final Fantasy X-2 it seems like they are making graphics the #1 priority and making the story, which is what makes Final Fantasy games great, was put on the backburner. It could be just me, but I thought they started to get it right again with Final Fantsy IX, but the last two games although they were good, I don't think lived up to the stories the other games delivered.

Last edited by 4044 on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:10
Quote this comment #6.1 Posted by AethylFilth on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:59
agreed. What would posess them to make X-2, when they could make VII-2 and make a fortune.. and a fantastic game.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #7 Posted by mr_skrilla on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:06
This is just bullsh't he's says that the graphics are "maxed out" or whatever... I don't know about you guys but I think game graphics can get a lot better..... I was really amazed at what some of the new games looked like (XBox 360 games b.c. PS3 was just rendered bullsh't)... Also the gameplay will improve with new systems because developers can make larger, more interactive worlds.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #8 Posted by Epimetheus on 02 Jun 2005 - 13:20
With what money? Publishers are ripping apart the developers, and are pressing them to hard, I've seen this over the past four years, as the guy says, lead developers, programmers, directors, producers, are leaving and saying "Screw you". A worthy mention would be the Blizzard breakup of 2003.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #9 Posted by AethylFilth on 02 Jun 2005 - 14:04
Someone pay me to develop.
Quote this comment Reply to this comment #10 Posted by Devlin on 03 Jun 2005 - 16:42
I will agree that to many bakers spoil the cake, but I mean all we have wanted is great graphics and great content all along, I would sacrfice some graphics for all the content, but there is no way any company can sell to me that they actuall need 100 people to work on a game, we need small groups to come togther with an Idea and then make it their own, the problem revield here is that even if this is done the developers (the people that actually come up with and make) of the game are getting shafted in the end when they make a huge impact in the gaming community the pockets don't feel that same impact. That is the corporate way of the world, they figure that without us your nothing, they have the money and the power, or so they think

I callf for a, No strike that - The GAMING COMMUNITY calls for all Top notch developers to GET UP AND WALK OUT TODAY. Take you talent with you and come togther to take back the world of gaming, rid us of the rush job crap we have been feed for the past years and make it what it should be

"For the Gamers - By the Gamers"


Last edited by 28166 on 03 Jun 2005 - 17:59
[1]

Commenting has either been disabled on this article or you are not logged in. Click here to login or register, its free!

Note: Anonymous commenting is disabled in order to keep the quality of responses to a high standard.


Scroll to the Top
....
My Preferences
....
Communicating with server
Loading
Please Wait...
....
Loading
 X 
....