Pete Hines on the OXM Podcast

Brother None

Brother None

This ghoul has seen it all
Orderite
If you're into Podcasts, Pete Hines is interviewed in the latest OXM Podcast. On top of the regular horse armor still sells remark that always makes me wonder why when it's widely recognized as a mistake, it was never pulled. But people buy it, "inexplicably" in Hines' words.

Also, if you claim you don't care about graphics, you're lying.<blockquote>"When you boil a game down, somebody flips through a magazine, like OXM for example, and you may or may not get them to read page five of Mike [Channell]'s 16 page coverage of Skyrim - page five is awesome by the way, so don't skip it.

"But they will look at a screenshot and make a snap decision: 'that looks awesome', or 'I'm not interested'. So if you can make something look amazing just at first glance, it's so much easier to get them."

Hines revealed that Fallout 3 marketing used images of action sequences because these showed off the upgraded Gamebryo engine best.

"People were like 'they're not focussing on the RPG stuff, all their demos are all about action and not about quests'. Well, we tend to show what shows well," Hines explained.

"It's very difficult to convey to somebody in a period of time - here's a character that you didn't create, but somehow I'm going to get you to care about this quest and the context of it, right now."</blockquote>Thanks GameBanshee.
 
Let them eat cake!

No matter how superficial and shallow you want to paint this guy, he'll always one up you himself.

Hines said:
all their demos
Click to expand...
Good ole slippery Pete. When was the last time Bethesda released a demo? Pre-milenium?

God forbid, you know, people could see and touch the game for themselves and make their own decisions instead of having to buy the OXM issue you have a sweetheart exclusive deal with to shill whatever it is you peddle.

Page 5? I think you're giving your target audience too much credit Pete.
 
Cimmerian Nights said:
Let them eat cake!
Hines said:
all their demos
Click to expand...
Good ole slippery Pete. When was the last time Bethesda released a demo? Pre-milenium?
Click to expand...

I would assume he means at conventions, and the builds reviewers play.

And as much of an ass as I feel like, I have to agree with him. That's not to say there aren't a dozen other variables that go into making a game look eye-catching, but to the usual spuds most are going to be drawn to some buff dude whacking a dragon. It's just a testament to who they're marketing to.
 
Right, why would you want consumers to decide for themselves when you can essentially buy off an official platform magazine with vested interest in your games' success, who can tell consumers what to think for them?

He can utilize 'demo' to mean whatever he wants, but to every other publisher/developer/studio and comsumer/gamer in existence, game demo means "free sample of a game so you can get a feel for what it is before buying the full version."

And as much of an ass as I feel like, I have to agree with him. That's not to say there aren't a dozen other variables that go into making a game look eye-catching, but to the usual spuds most are going to be drawn to some buff dude whacking a dragon. It's just a testament to who they're marketing to.
Click to expand...
What you're talking about here is what sells the most for Bethesda, not that which makes a better game.

If the content of the game was half as good as the tales PH spins and the intensity and volume of their pre-release marketing...holy shit.
 
That would be all fine if all of their images were actually from the games...

11403754973_2.jpg

:roll:
 
Love to know why my post was deleted. It is completely on topic. There is another thread about this already being discussed on the general gaming discussion forum. That is all I wanted to do was inform people of this fact.

Either way my opinion is that Pete Hines is talking out his buttcheeks again. Graphics aren't as important as artistic style. You can have a game with simple graphics that are extremely artistically interesting or stand out and have it do very well.

Also graphics have less to do with immersion than quality writing or believable characters / settings. I would have my immersion broken right away if a post-apocalyptic game was set in the most beautifully rendered near-life like McDonalds full of fat lazy people.
 
graphics can help

graphics can increase immersivity greatly

problem is the game has to have good gameplay

otherwise its just a crap game thats shiny
 
People should differ between graphic quality and graphic style. In a lot cases, people are talking about the graphic style, when they call something ugly.

Like, for example, the people who say that Fallout's graphic is shit nowdays, while in fact it is not. The game features really detailed and quality 2d work that is not on latest graphic standards nor has been something super impressive tech in 1987, but that doesn't make it ugly looking. It still has an unique style that looks good, because of it's quality and detail.
 
I find it better to divide it into graphics quality and art direction. Easier to differentiate that way.

Also there appears to be a couple of different definitions of immersion being bandied around which makes that word slightly confusing.
 
nope

immersive means being able to suspend disbelief and starting to believe that you are in the world and that the world is real.
 
I don't really put too much value in graphics myself - going beyond KotOR/Call of Duty 2/Oblivion, which by now are quite dated, isn't necessary in my opinion. But, I can see why he says this. A 2D gaming interface is a lot less immersive than a 3D one, all other things being equal. And I'd rather play a Fallout game with high detail graphics than low ones, regardless of the "dimension". Imagine playing Fallout 1 or 2 with a palate of only 32 distinct colors - that wouldn't be too great. Graphic detail always matters more than prettiness, but it never hurts to have both. Unless, of course, the developers spend so much time on that they neglect gameplay....
 
A funny anecdote: A few months ago I had to upgrade my video card because my old 8800gts actually flat out DIED on me.

I was pretty excited after upgrading since I could play all my games with max settings now. I loaded up New Vegas and turned the graphics up to max and promptly lost interest. The higher quality graphics actually made the game feel more lifeless.
 
Okay so most people here don't care "all" about graphics.Now I wonder where all the tons of folks that posted how bad New Vegas looked are at. If I was to make assumption from them...then I say that Pete was a 100% correct! :wink:
 
Not stressing certain elements when judging games doesn't somehow prohibit people from talking about and judging those elements.
 
"But there's another, somewhat grubbier, less artistically watertight reason: graphics sell games."

That's the truth of it. The majority of gamers aren't roleplaying, text-adventuring, don't-judge-a-book-by-its-cover people. So, in that sense, Pete isn't incorrect. He's a marketing guy, he's looking at the dollar signs.
 
The contention that graphics don't matter is asinine. At the least, they improve the experience by making it easier to discern elements in the game and thus opening up more subtle and complex gameplay. At best, they "immerse" or whatever buzzword you want to use.

I don't think Pete gets what gamers are trying to tell him though, just as sampson70 up there doesn't seem to. I don't think any gamer won't make note of graphics, and I certainly understand the concern on what sells for magazine or box cover screenshots, which is why Bethesda's first trailers are always epic pre-rendered cutscenes (like this), which is something most publishers do.

That said, when someone tells Pete Hines that "graphics don't matter", I imagine he's saying "graphics are in service of gameplay, not vice versa", which I would assume is how most of us here feel.
 
Brother None said:
The contention that graphics don't matter is asinine. At the least, they improve the experience by making it easier to discern elements in the game and thus opening up more subtle and complex gameplay. At best, they "immerse" or whatever buzzword you want to use.
Click to expand...

I have to agree and disagree. Emphasis on graphics can just as much be a boring, time wasting distraction. Graphics still have to be coupled to the gameplay. There are muiltiple games in my mind where I wished that I would just saw the raw numbers to conclude it.
 
Brother None said:
The heck. Did you not finish reading the post? That's what I said.
Click to expand...

Yep. I was refering to this though:
The contention that graphics don't matter is asinine. At the least, they improve the experience by making it easier to discern elements in the game and thus opening up more subtle and complex gameplay. At best, they "immerse" or whatever buzzword you want to use.
Click to expand...

Which implies that more graphical solutions are always preferable. Which just isn't the case when flexibility and clarity gets lost. Popular example in modern games: Interfaces/UI.
 
A 2D gaming interface is a lot less immersive than a 3D one,
Click to expand...

You would assume so, right? I don't really find this to be the case though. My mind can create far more detailed environments than the best engine out there, so to some degree 3D is a bit of a distraction. Similar reason why I generally find books far more immersive and enjoyable than films.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top