Is it ok to shun the current videogame industry?

[visuatrox]

When the Amiga, Atari and C64 "died", i basically stopped gaming.. The great looking "mainstream" games eventually lured me back into gaming again, so I bought a PS2 (and then Xbox & Gamecube too.. but sold them now though).

I must say that there is an insane amount of really good games released all the time, but my taste is more "retro" and I can't really enjoy many of the modern genres. Also I don't have sparetime as I used to, most games are just too long and time consuming for me to ever have time to play (the reason I sold the GameCube and Xbox).

Luckily though the PS2 has turned out to be a goldmine when it comes to shmups and odd simple but fun games. You just have to do the extra effort of doing research about what is avaible, and then import the games. I just now pre-order every shmup that gets released, not been letdown yet and the developers need all the support they can get.

So even though I basically only play niche genres, I still look forward to the next genration of consoles. More powerful hardware makes porting Arcade games easier. 2D is far from maxed out either, we need to see 2D games with highresolution sprites . And if the PS3 is backward compatible that is enough reason for me to get one.

[TWITCHDOCTOR]

Is it ok?

Not if you enjoy playing video games! Some games are getting better with technology. Games such as racing and FPS, even those 3D action titles such as God of War and Devil May Cry.
One thing I fear though, is "virtual reality" becoming a reality. I really don't see much fun in these type games.

Also, if your a sports fan, well, the games are constantly being updated and upgraded. Hopefully, they'll retain the simplicity of the early Madden games on the Genesis.

Even shmups can benefit from "Next-Gen" consoles...do you really think Gradius V could have been made and played on the 8Bit NES? Even the Neo-Geo wouldn't be able to handle it. Maybe so, but it sure wouldn't look and sound as nice.

[FatCobra]

You are right Twitch, technology can help certain genres. I think racing has benefitted from it the most. Just look how far we've gone from Pole Position.

However, as Spiderman once said, "With great power comes great responability." If the techonology is used right, than we get some awesome games that would not have been possible on an older machine (Gradius V is a great example, just can't be done on the NES or even the Neo-geo). But, most developers take the cheap route and abuse the technology to push the equalivent of a polished turd. It looks nice, but plays like crap.

Between my home-brew PC project and my Saturn import plans, I really don't have the time and money to waste on new games that may dissapoint. That $50 I blew on Generic Mainstream Title #934765879256 could have been used to purchase an awesome Saturn shmup or part of a PC part that I need. I don't have alot of money to toss around at the moment, either.

Maybe I'll just RENT the damn games instead. They'll be beaten in a week anyway and it's cheaper on the wallet. That way at least I won't miss out on too much while I stay in the past.

[Andi]

Honestly, the only reason that I don't have any consoles past the Saturn is that I don't even have time and money to buy and play all the games I want for my old consoles.

Once I own all the old games I want and am thoroughly sick of them, then I'll probably go get a new console. That could take 10 years though.

[Davey]

2D is far from maxed out either, we need to see 2D games with highresolution sprites .

2D has already reached the point where artistry is more important than technology. Metal Slug looks better at 304x224 than does any doujin shmup running at 800x600.

I'm sure a 1600x1200 game running at 60 fps would look rather nice, but unfortunately sprites don't draw and animate themselves.

[sethsez]

2D is far from maxed out either, we need to see 2D games with highresolution sprites .

2D has already reached the point where artistry is more important than technology. Metal Slug looks better at 304x224 than does any doujin shmup running at 800x600.

I'm sure a 1600x1200 game running at 60 fps would look rather nice, but unfortunately sprites don't draw and animate themselves.

I can't imagine it'd be more work to make a higher-resolution sprite, though, at least if we're talking about hand-drawn art. After all, most sprites that aren't constructed pixel-by-pixel start at a high resolution and are then downgraded. Creating higher resulution sprites would just require the removal of a step.

[FatCobra]

You know, me shunning the current market is getting me into the Saturn and importing game for it.

[Ganelon]

2D has already reached the point where artistry is more important than technology. Metal Slug looks better at 304x224 than does any doujin shmup running at 800x600.

Definitely. Princess Crown still looks better than pretty much every recent 2D game simply because the artists were talented and put a lot of work into the game. Street Fighter III is still the most well-animated 2D game despite being 8 years old and that quality is already readily attainable on the PS2 but a game company would be out of their minds to have their illustrators draw that many frames for everything. It's all a time/money issue. But then again, cel shaded 3D has the capability to look almost like 2D with a lot less effort needed just to shade the model.

[raiden]

I can't imagine it'd be more work to make a higher-resolution sprite, though, at least if we're talking about hand-drawn art. After all, most sprites that aren't constructed pixel-by-pixel start at a high resolution and are then downgraded. Creating higher resulution sprites would just require the removal of a step.

as long as you´re talking about non-animated sprites, that´s right. Lo-res sprites can often be animated by just changing 2 pixels per frame, while a hi-res version would require at least a partly redraw of the section.
Another aspect is memory usage. A hi-res game like Guilty Gear X with animation quality as in Street Fighter III wouldn´t fit in any current console´s memory, maybe in the next generation.

[neorichieb1971]

Alot of the time the extra power in technology only goes towards far background detail and close up stuff.

Take GT4 for example, nice graphics, all that extra power and coding capability went into the backgrounds, the rest of the game looked almost identical to GT3.

Its the same in shooters. Ikaruga is a very very basic game, it just looks nice because in the background you've got high res polygons whizzing all around the place. But the game could of been done on a cell phone.

Technology is used as marketing tool to make you buy new hardware these days. In the old days you had Arcade games to aspire to, there was a big difference between outrun on the SMS and Outrun in the arcades. These days with nothing to aspire to, you just have marketing team telling you this and that. But underneath, the games are exactly the same as before.

[sethsez]

Except you're only picking games that support your case, and you're ignoring the impact that graphics can have on atmosphere.

Would a game like Fatal Frame work nearly as well on the PSOne or Saturn? It would probably still work, but not nearly as well (Silent Hill is the exception here, but that's because the game is able to get away with never really showing anything in any sort of detail). The same goes for Doom 3, which bases its entire premise on the graphics. But they're not there just to make you go "wow," they're there because powerful imagery can have a huge impact on how someone perceives a game. Play Doom 3 with all of the effects off, and then again with all of them on. They feel drastically different because the feelings the game creates are so central to someone's enjoyment of it. Remember Burning Rangers on the Saturn? Now there was a game that could have benefitted from better hardware.

Half-Life 2's physics would not have been possible of previous systems. Period. They're simply too complex and often work on too large a scale. This is one area where added processing power has had a positive impact, because certain games can definitely benefit from more realistic physics. AI has also made dramatic improvements over the years (remember the days when it was impresive if an enemy knew how to take cover?).

Also, I have to wonder why you used the progression from GT3 to GT4 as an example of why new technology isn't needed, because there's no real advancement there. Both games are on the PS2. If anything, the lack of advancement would indicate that newer hardware is needed if we want to push to push the envelope further visually (though I'd argue Polyphony is just a lazy developer and have been rehashing the same game since part 2).

In addition, how is it any different at all from the arcade days? Arcade games were just like home games, except more powerful. It's the exact same scenario, and the only difference is the location. Outrun on the Genesis was an uglier arcade Outrun, just like GT3 is an uglier GT4. I'm not seeing the point you're trying to make.

Finally, when you say "it's the same game as ever under the hood" I have to wonder why that's a complaint on a shmup site. No, genres aren't going to be completely recycled and replaced every five years, but why should they? Some genres (sports and sims, FPS) benefit hugely from better AI, physics and graphics, some (2D fighters, freeform games) benefit from added amounts of RAM, some (some platformers, GTA and their ilk, Morrowind and its ilk, FPS) benefit from the ability to show absolutely gigantic worlds with little or no loading. These advances are real, and I don't understand why people insist, every generation, that "it can never get better than this." I remember people saying that when the PS2 was about to be released about the PSOne as well... and as a fan of racers, FPS and RPGs (in addition to shmups, platformers and other genres which don't really benefit that much anymore), I can only think back on that viewpoint and laugh.

(no, I don't know why every reply of mine winds up being a novel )

[neorichieb1971]

I take you point.

My point is that most games can be done with alot less power, the power is used to take a simple concept into a marketting position.

In your Fatal frame argument, you have a very good point. Visuals and eerie sound do make a game better. Games that involve your imagination can have the same effect as a good book. Sometimes what you don't see, or can't see is more important than what you do see and vice versa.

In some examples more power is better, in other examples its just used to market a game sold under 50 different names beforehand. A football game is a football game FFS. I can understand name changing to reflect real life players and such, but jizzing in your pants about Madden2006 because it has TV style presentation isn't that much better than having a game that can produce 85% of what TV presentation can do.



Cube shot above Madden 05




There is a Xbox 2 render/in game shot.

Now, those 2 games will likely play identical bar a few slight alterations. Yet the cube one will be obsolete by the time the Xbox2 one comes out. But why? IMO, the graphical difference is quite alot, but the impact in-game is virtually zero.


Take Resident evil 4 for another example, you can shoot a zombie at point blank range with a shot gun, but Leon doesn't get blood on his clothes. Why not use that power in Xbox 2 to show a Leon that is getting his ass handed to him, or at least make it look like he's going through hell. All these games make everything look artificially clean, it really does my head in.

I like power to be used in a "ico" fashion. The castle's are very artistic, but somehow escape you from planet earth. It looks real, yet its abstract enough for you to be curious. It was one of the first times I really felt I was in the game. A game that made me feel with my eyes. If every game did that I would be in heaven.

Here is some pics of Ico 2 -







Believe it or not, those pictures are more amazing to me than any nextgen shot

[sethsez]

I take you point.

My point is that most games can be done with alot less power

Of course they can. The question then becomes "is it worth the trade-off?" Assuming cars that look like boxes, OutRun 2 could have been done on the Saturn. Now, in the days of the Saturn, people would have said "give it to us now, graphics don't make a difference" but in hindsight, which version would you rather have?

Now, those 2 games will likely play identical bar a few slight alterations. Yet the cube one will be obsolete by the time the Xbox2 one comes out. But why? IMO, the graphical difference is quite alot, but the impact in-game is virtually zero.

Well, obviously. It's a simulation of a sport that's been around LONG before videogames. You're not going to get any major alterations from game to game because it's trying to stay true to an established form. The only real advances are in the area of how polished the graphics are (superficial difference) and how much closer the game is to real football, from AI to interface to physics (important difference).

Take Resident evil 4 for another example, you can shoot a zombie at point blank range with a shot gun, but Leon doesn't get blood on his clothes. Why not use that power in Xbox 2 to show a Leon that is getting his ass handed to him, or at least make it look like he's going through hell. All these games make everything look artificially clean, it really does my head in.

I'd argue RE4 has done a lot for this, actually. But the problem is we still don't have the ability to display absolutely everything we want to because of hardware limitations. I imagine that stuff like this will become less of an issue in future generations as it becomes easier to track all sorts of blood splatters and such over the course of a game without causing the game to sputter and die.

Believe it or not, those pictures are more amazing to me than any nextgen shot

I agree. And imagine what they'll be able to pull off on the PS3.

In all honesty, looking at those shots and having played through ICO, it's pretty easy to spot low-res textures and repeating textures, in addition to some rather blocky environments. The games look gorgeous despite the technology powering them, and I'm excited to see what developers like these are able to come up with when they have less limitations than they do now.

[neorichieb1971]

I agree. And imagine what they'll be able to pull off on the PS3.

It would obviously be possible to do alot more, as long as it keeps its abstractness I don't really care. Like a painting can resemble real life, but it doesn't look like real life, thats the beauty and identity of it.

[sethsez]

But the low res textures and low poly environments are the result of limitations placed on the devs, not because of any artistic vision. I love the art style, and I want to see it done the justice it deserves.

Thing is, a painting can still convey far, far, far more than any 3D real time graphics can, because the visuals created by a PS2 are still so amazingly primitive in comparison to all other forms of visual art. I'd understand a "this is good enough" mentality if we were at a point where visual artists could create whatever they wanted with the medium, but we're nowhere near that point. The closest we can do is create vague approximations.

Essentially, the limits a painter or sculptor face are nothing compared to the limits a 3D graphics designer faces when he has to take into account a game running in real time. This is why I feel photorealistic graphics are so important. Not because of the artistic value inherant in photorealsitic graphics themselves, but in the potential that the technology pushing them provides (though I do take exception to the notion that photorealism is inherantly non-artistic... there's a reason every great artist has a fundamental understanding of how to portray reality before they move into abstraction). I mean, consider how important lighting is in a good deal of art, and then think about how long we've had shadows that come anywhere near being convincing. Consider how much art relies on nice flowing shapes and curves, and then think about the fact that we still have trouble doing a totally convincing curve in 3D. We've got a long way to go before I'm satisfied that the tools are a means to an end, rather than a hurdle to overcome.

[silvery wings]

The thing is, if you can sift through all the bullshit and hype, there will always be those handful of nuggets that make that system a worthwhile purchase. Unfortunately the ratio is such that you may have to do a hell'uva lot of sifting, but if that results in you finding the next Rez or the next Ico then its gotta be worth it!

Thats what it is, I hate the sifting, and I don't think its worth it anymore. Back in the 16 bit and early 32 bit days the titles that got hyped were generally the best games available, game publishers didn't have massive advertising budgets, and thus the hype was purveyed via gamers and magazines. These days all it takes is an ad spot on MTV's "sunday spew" and a game is an instant best seller.

I remember the summer of 2000, shopping in an EB, looking for a new rpg to play. I picked up Valkyrie Profile, checked out the screenshots, and being an enix fan, i figured this was my best bet. I took the box to the counter, and the clerk says, "Awwww. Why do you wanna get that, I've heard Legend of Dragoon is so much better." I asked him if he'd played it and he said no, but he'd seen the opening video and it looked like the coolest rpg ever. He seemed like a nice enough guy, so I plunked down $50 for an extremely mediocre RPG with some of the worst dialogue ever included in a video game. All these years later I still want to play valkyrie profile, but now I can't afford to because of it's overinflated ebay price.

Last month I went into the local EB (where, incidentally I work) and told my boss who happened to be working that I wanted a copy of Ys 6, and was met with a familiar response, "Awww, Why are you getting that, you should buy God of War instead." I hadn't played God of War and had heard it was very good, so I seriously considered the suggestion, and then I remembered 5 years earlier and promptly bought Ys 6. Its a good thing, because Ys 6 is a great little gem of a game, and while god of war is definately higher quality than legend of dragoon, I happen to find the art direction disgustingly ugly, and the gameplay was done much better in Rygar. I'll pick it up when its $12.99 used.

So I'm not interested in the next gen consoles, save nintendo if what they come up with is actually a step forward rather than a step in some random direction. Concerning graphics, we have the least to gain from this new set of consoles: 16 bit consoles upped the ante by introucing a whole new array of colors and hardware special effects, 32 bit gave us rudimentary polygons with low res textures, 128 bit gave us detailed, solid looking 3d environments like PCs had been doing for years, and now this next gen gives us what, a few more polys? some pixel shaders? prettier lens flares and bump mapping? Not to mention, its all about style, not tech-specs, I still find ranger-x to be a more asthetically pleasing game than most games on current gen consoles, and ecco the dolphin provides a more immersive atmosphere than doom 3. There's too many games coming out, and its just too much work to sift through all the crap to find the few gems that will fly under the radar of most people and press.

[Diabollokus]

Quality Control is where its at, its just become too laxed in recent years.

Graphics have improved genres and atmospheres the sense of realisim in modren games in unrivalled but, how much further can things go???

Surely there is a limit to how far visuals can go. maybe then quality is improved and people begin to care again. and we'll maybe see another panzer dragoon saga or silvergun.

[Cugel]

Quality Control is where its at, its just become too laxed in recent years.

Graphics have improved genres and atmospheres the sense of realisim in modren games in unrivalled but, how much further can things go???

Surely there is a limit to how far visuals can go. maybe then quality is improved and people begin to care again. and we'll maybe see another panzer dragoon saga or silvergun.

Lots of good points.

I plunked down $430 for a GeForce 6800 GT when Doom 3 came out many months ago. Yes, while Doom 3 was fun for 10-15 hours and had amazing graphics, it wasn't very satisfying. I actually enjoyed Serious Sam with its wave of enemies far more than a few monsters popping up behind you in the dark in Doom 3. That got old quick. And why can't you tape the damn flashlight to your gun? Yes, there is a mod to do that, but evidently in the 24th century, people can build bases on Mars but aren't smart enough to attach flashlights to weapons.

I spend more time playing 2D shmups like Battle Garegga than any of the fancy first person shooters like Half-Life 2 or Far Cry. These games are not fun. I have an up-to-date computer (Athlon 64, GeForce 6800 GT, 1 GB RAM) so I have no excuse not to play these games, but I don't.

[Diabollokus]

Yeah 2D shmups is where its at personally I can't wait to play garegga have a feeling I'll like it more than silvergun.

Saw a replay of stage 5 the clouds levels kicked ass, pity the guy is the replay wasn't that good. Must be one tough game.

Not to Contradict myself but Its weird the bigger my collection gets and the more games I play, the less I want to play them. Its quite a sad paradox as I know someday I'll probably grow out of gaming and not enjoy it anymore.

Perhaps I shmupped too hard too soon.

[raiden]

These advances are real, and I don't understand why people insist, every generation, that "it can never get better than this." I remember people saying that when the PS2 was about to be released about the PSOne as well... and as a fan of racers, FPS and RPGs (in addition to shmups, platformers and other genres which don't really benefit that much anymore), I can only think back on that viewpoint and laugh.

I don´t know, with racers I´m not that convinced, really. The only racing game since 64bit that I found truly impressive is MSR, together with its Gotham sequels. Wipeout has gotten worse, Waverace has gotten worse, Colin McRae has gotten worse, Sega Rally has gotten worse, Ridge Racer... everything. The new franchises are also crap when it comes to gameplay: Rallysport Championship, Quantum Redshift, Ford Racing, Splashdown... V-Rally and Gran Turismo were never any good, anyway. Graphics have improved, but car handling has become less interesting over time. Worst of all is the matter of course layout: older games used to have custom courses, fitting to their specific car handling. Nowadays, every new racing game gets the same courses, conversions of real circuits with a few more trees or different lighting. SO boring...
The problem is people don´t even care about racing games as games. They see them as a kind of virtual tourism, just driving around until they´ve seen everything, and then buying the next game, instead of trying to improve your performance by learning the courses, you buy tuning parts you get as a "reward" for your patience in just driving around for some time. The games play themselves almost automatically, with GT4 being the new record, as it even has a mode where you literally don´t drive by yourself.

Not to Contradict myself but Its weird the bigger my collection gets and the more games I play, the less I want to play them. Its quite a sad paradox as I know someday I'll probably grow out of gaming and not enjoy it anymore.

just stop buying games, at least for some time. Spend more time with the games you have already.

Perhaps I shmupped too hard too soon.

that´s not the reason, because there is no such thing as shmupping too hard too soon.

[Acid King]

I take you point.


My point is that most games can be done with alot less power, the power is used to take a simple concept into a marketting position.
....

In some examples more power is better, in other examples its just used to market a game sold under 50 different names beforehand. A football game is a football game FFS. I can understand name changing to reflect real life players and such, but jizzing in your pants about Madden2006 because it has TV style presentation isn't that much better than having a game that can produce 85% of what TV presentation can do.

I disagree. Do you actually think they're improving the graphics of the Madden games for marketing reasons? That's absurd. They improve the graphics because there is more power available to them and in games like Madden, realism matters to the consumer. As for people jizzing their pants over the new Madden, it's probably not because of the graphics though it has a bit to do with it, it's because a new, more refined entry in their favorite series is being released. The games get refined and changed slightly over the years. It's no different than Valve releasing patches for Counterstrike every so often that alter the game slightly. Not noticeable to someone who doesn't play the game, but people who having been playing the game for years will notice.

[MovingTarget]

The price to pay for these minor updates is ridiculous

[SheSaidDutch]

The price to pay for these minor updates is ridiculous

The King of Fighters series comes to mind *gets coat*

[sethsez]

The price to pay for these minor updates is ridiculous

The King of Fighters series comes to mind *gets coat*

I couldn't agree more, actually. Those don't even bother to update most of the graphics, they just fuck around with the chatacter choices a bit, stick in a new system that more often than not is worse than the one that came before, and call it a brand new game. It's even more blatant than Madden, and the same fans who demonize EA are the same ones who defend SNK for this shit (if you're going to release a sequel every year and charge full price, at least make an ATTEMPT to appear like you're not just trying to suck money from loyal customers). And the amazing thing is that I actually liked the first few games in the series, but SNK kept releasing the same thing over and over with no upgrades, just shifting things around a bit.

Wipeout has gotten worse, Waverace has gotten worse, Colin McRae has gotten worse, Sega Rally has gotten worse, Ridge Racer... everything. The new franchises are also crap when it comes to gameplay: Rallysport Championship, Quantum Redshift, Ford Racing, Splashdown... V-Rally and Gran Turismo were never any good, anyway.

Wipeout and Waverace I'll agree with. Colin McRae is better than it's ever been, I never cared for Sega Rally, and Ridge Racer on the PSP is damn fun. Rallysport is one of the best things to happen this generation, as is Project Gotham Racing and Burnout (neither of which you mentioned). Gran Turismo has gotten better, but I agree it's never been good, and the others I haven't played. It's all a matter of differing tastes and what you look for in a racing game.

I spend more time playing 2D shmups like Battle Garegga than any of the fancy first person shooters like Half-Life 2 or Far Cry. These games are not fun.

Actually, they are fun. Amazingly fun. Just, you know, to other people. People are once again talking about "quality" as if it's some quantifiable thing, but it's not. There's a reason people absolutely loved Half-Life 2, and it wasn't the graphics (the engine isn't as powerful as the Doom 3 one, which wasn't nearly as loved). It was the immersion, the sheer artistic detail, and above all the gameplay. I don't care for Battle Garegga (I'd much rather play Strikers) but that doesn't mean it's a low-quality game. It's just not my thing.

Graphics have improved genres and atmospheres the sense of realisim in modren games in unrivalled but, how much further can things go???

Much further. Like I already said, we can't do things in games that artists and sculptors have been taking for granted for thousands of years. It's not an issue of pushing technology just for the sake of it, it's an issue of pushing technology to the point where it becomes a viable tool for an artist rather than something the artist needs to fight and compromise with, and we're still very far from that.

And finally, I'm noticing a lot of people coming to the conclusion that quality is exactly the same as their personal taste. IT IS NOT. A well-made game in a genre you don't like is not an indication of a dip in quality. I absolutely, positively don't care about football, but I'll admit that EA probably makes a damn good game of it. If gaming isn't catering to your tastes, that's a damn good reason to ignore modern gaming, but that doesn't mean that it's getting worse. It means it's shifting away from the kind of stuff you like.

[Andi]

Wipeout has gotten worse, Waverace has gotten worse, Colin McRae has gotten worse, Sega Rally has gotten worse, Ridge Racer... everything. The new franchises are also crap when it comes to gameplay: Rallysport Championship, Quantum Redshift, Ford Racing, Splashdown... V-Rally and Gran Turismo were never any good, anyway.

Colin McRae has gotten better graphics, more accurate physics, and more customization. As far as fans of rally sims are concerned, this means the game has gotten better.

And finally, I'm noticing a lot of people coming to the conclusion that quality is exactly the same as their personal taste. IT IS NOT. A well-made game in a genre you don't like is not an indication of a dip in quality. I absolutely, positively don't care about football, but I'll admit that EA probably makes a damn good game of it. If gaming isn't catering to your tastes, that's a damn good reason to ignore modern gaming, but that doesn't mean that it's getting worse. It means it's shifting away from the kind of stuff you like.

That's a very good observation Sethsez. I'm pleased by your open-mindedness.

[Ganelon]

I don´t know, with racers I´m not that convinced, really. The only racing game since 64bit that I found truly impressive is MSR, together with its Gotham sequels. Wipeout has gotten worse, Waverace has gotten worse, Colin McRae has gotten worse, Sega Rally has gotten worse, Ridge Racer... everything. The new franchises are also crap when it comes to gameplay: Rallysport Championship, Quantum Redshift, Ford Racing, Splashdown... V-Rally and Gran Turismo were never any good, anyway. Graphics have improved, but car handling has become less interesting over time. Worst of all is the matter of course layout: older games used to have custom courses, fitting to their specific car handling. Nowadays, every new racing game gets the same courses, conversions of real circuits with a few more trees or different lighting. SO boring...
The problem is people don´t even care about racing games as games. They see them as a kind of virtual tourism, just driving around until they´ve seen everything, and then buying the next game, instead of trying to improve your performance by learning the courses, you buy tuning parts you get as a "reward" for your patience in just driving around for some time. The games play themselves almost automatically, with GT4 being the new record, as it even has a mode where you literally don´t drive by yourself.

Sorry, but I have no clue what you're talking about. I only care about Ridge Racer and Wipeout and since Ridge Racer is my fave racing series and one where I can actually race for time against others, I'll talk in terms of RR.

You admit graphics have gotten better. Then you say that the handling has become "less interesting?" What do you mean? Ridge Racer in particular has had a different control system in every game, from RR's "touchy as hell" sliding" to the same system but different timing used in RRR. Rage made sliding easier and tire grip firmer but with the same heavy penalty for messing up the drift. R4 introduced sliding that was silky smooth and easy for everyone. RR64 allowed the option of using the sliding from both RR and RRR as well as its custom, slightly looser sliding system. RRV once again has easy overslide along with horrible turning radii but maintains the smooth sliding found in R4. R:RE is not an RR game so I won't mention it and I haven't played the recent handhelds yet.

RR courses have not ever been based on real race courses like Suzuka. With the exception of RR64, which uses the landscapes from RR, RRR, and its own outback setting, every other RR game takes place in a specific fictional area with different tracks around it. Each track from RR to RRV caters specifically to certain cars. Take Rage for instance. Try the oval track with anything but an Assoluto and you will not win, period. Use the Victoire/Vainqure with super handling rather than the Lizard Tempest/Bulldog with super acceleration on the other and you won't ever attain the best times in the game on the other tracks.

Do I think buying crap to artificially boost your performance is lame? Definitely.
Do I think the majority of people who buy racing games can't race worth crap (i.e. choose the best handling cars with poor speed & acceleration, can't drift worth a damn, use AT)? Definitely.

However,

Does your statement apply to Ridge Racer or Wipeout? No.
Does your statement hold true for everyone who plays racing games? No.

Again, I think you're simply being elitist here. If racing was really as tough and gritty as you seem to want it, the games WOULDN'T SELL. That's the same damn thing that happened to flight sims and 2D fighters, "hardcore fans" who cared nothing about business and demanded more and more "hardcore features" until the games were suited to a pathetically small minority, alienating casual players and causing the whole genre to fall apart. Thankfully, racing game developers are NOT headed along this route. As a diehard RR fan who can match times with the top 50 in Japan (in R4), I'm fine with the situation as it is as long as I get my share of well-designed cars and tracks that can be raced competitively. As long as the balance between favor towards the diehard fans and favor towards the casual newcomer is maintained, I don't see a problem.

However, I WOULD like a revival of arcade racers. There hasn't been a new one since RRV that wasn't some "underground racer."

[Diabollokus]

Can I have some examples of the things that sculptors have been doing for thousands of years that we still cannot do?

If you mean physically moulding with your hands, ever seen the gloves used for 3D modeling?

[sethsez]

Can I have some examples of the things that sculptors have been doing for thousands of years that we still cannot do?

Sure. We cannot, in real-time 3D, create figures with the kind of minute details that are possible withs sculptures because we have very defined limits on how many polygons we can have on screen at any one time while still running at anything resembling a playable framerate (although bump-mapping and real-mapping fix this to a degree, it's still very much a spit-and-bubblegum fix that doesn't hold up to scrutiny). We arguably can with pre-rendered graphics, but in-game graphics aren't anywhere near the level of sophistication of Toy Story, let alone The Incredibles or FF:TSW.

Essentially, the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox cannot render, in real time, anything near the level of detail in something like Michelangelo's David, and the next systems aren't going to be there either.

[Diabollokus]

Wasn't the answer to polygons to ditch them? and use NURBS instead to create toy story standard graphics? and that idea for console use was around 4 years ago. Sony even claimed it as a possibility for the playstation 2.

[silvery wings]

Essentially, the PS2, Gamecube and Xbox cannot render, in real time, anything near the level of detail in something like Michelangelo's David, and the next systems aren't going to be there either.

Im sorry but I really don't get this argument. Michelangelo's David is a piece of rock that has been carved to resemble a human bieng. It is made of an innumerable number of atoms, and was crafted according to the capability of man and the laws of nature. The amount of digital data required to even store this sculpture "accurately" is infinite.

The very fact that video games are a digital medium means that in some form or another, a game's components will be discrete. The hurdle which you speak of will always be there, its only a matter of degrees. Analog mediums like painting and sculpting cannot and will not ever compare. Yes, graphics can get better, they will always be able to, and herein lies the problem. Games are not art, they are a medium by which art can be conveyed. More importantly, games contain gameplay, which i feel pretty comfortable in saying has not evolved much since 1995.

Microsoft and Sony will continue to make better and better consoles, but until they take the emphasis off of graphics, the other aspects of games will continue to go by the wayside. When I play La Pucelle Tactics, I don't see blocky textures, and low res sprites, I see cute characters and interesting worlds because the art inspires my imagination (isnt that the purpose of art?). Games will always be a "vague" representation of something, no matter how technologically advanced, its up to you to fill in the rest. Sorry if i sound harsh, but I honestly don't feel that its worth buying a new console every 5 years until the earth runs out of silicon just for what is, in the grand scheme of things, a minor cosmetic touch up.