I was in the very middle of the community when the games came out. They were considered successes, and still are. SSX Tricky was successful enough to warrant a "Greatest Hits" release. Back then, sales figures weren't what they are now, and a million was very good - SSX was generally considered to be the best game at PS2 release. SSX Tricky only improved it.

_________________

Whatever the numbers, it seems like EA is happy with them since Frank Gibeau called the launch "very successful." I feel like if there were an issue with getting a sequel on its feet, it wouldn't have to do with whether or not the game would be successful, but with one of those "we want to do a sequel, but we want to do it in a big way/the right way" sorts of things. I don't know, I can just see the higher-ups getting cold feet over committing to a certain direction, given the disconnect between what they seemed to want for the reboot and what the fans wanted, and the big differences between the original games and the reboot that set conflicting precedents.

The more I think about it though, the more it seems like next-gen justifies another SSX more than ever. The online stuff Sony's pushing with the PS4 either works perfectly with what SSX already does (Autolog/wall inspired interface) or seems like a natural evolution of online in SSX (video sharing). In addition, it seems like there will be more of a focus on content and less of a focus on graphics, which is perfect for SSX as it needs to play catch-up. There were quite a few fan-favorite features that had to be cut because they couldn't be done well that could potentially return now. I think I've said this before in this thread, but the ability to reintroduce split-screen would be massive, considering how many times I've heard "Did they patch in split-screen yet? That's the only reason I didn't buy it." Announce split-screen from the get-go and not only do you get those customers back, but most likely new ones as well, seeing as there aren't a ton of split-screen racing experiences these days.

There's room for improvement regardless, and adding the next gen's potential to that makes it very obvious how the franchise could benefit from a sequel, unlike EA's annual releases that don't see that kind of exponential improvement with each iteration.

_________________

I get that, but EA still deemed a failure as they apparently were aiming to sell at least 1 million on at least two systems when they made Tricky multi-platform (This goal didn't happen until 3 came out) Tricky, for the PS2, was estimated to have sold about 800 thousand prior to the greatest hist re-release and 3's debut.

But of course, the sales will stay ambiguous as long as they're kept secret. Regardless of sales, SSX set a pretty high benchmark that hasn't been seen since the original NBA Jam in terms of replayability and originality.

_________________


Hmm. Two awards. Not bad for a relative lurker :p

How do you know EA deemed it a failure? Is there a quote somewhere? The first two games was portrayed as a success, with excellent reviews (especially with SSX being the lone jewel of PS2's release) and if it had been a failure, they never would have greenlit 3. It's easy to look back at the numbers through the lens of today's "we need 5 million or it will be a failure" lens, but that would be a fallacy.

_________________

As i said before, Tricky didn't hit the million mark on a single system. That's what EA was aiming for it took the combined total of the ports to get the one million figure, then the series started gaining momentum after about a year, which led to SSX 3. Yeah, Tricky did get good reviews, but some of those same reviewers correctly predicted that the game would flop.

Here's a quote from Tricky's PSX Magazine review:

_________________


Hmm. Two awards. Not bad for a relative lurker :p

Wikipedia said it, it must be true. Wait, I just had a revelation. There's an "e" and an "a" in that order in "Wikipedia" so therefore EA said it too! OMG.

Anyone have a legit source where EA says that SSX and Tricky were complete and utter failures? Actually I think by the reasoning in this thread, every game in the series was a complete and utter failure.

The track of this thread has brought me much confusion and distress.

_________________

- KotW -

I did get that quote from a legit source though. Othewise, I'd have never use it. I never meant it was an utter failure though, more of a "sleeper hit" of sorts. The only reason i used "failure" was in the fact the first two games failed to meet EA's initial expectations, but picked up in sales after about a year after their releases.

_________________


Hmm. Two awards. Not bad for a relative lurker :p

I think sleeper hit would probably be an apt description for the pessimistic, I would go with hit (without the sleeper) but failure is too strong of a word. The games are beloved, as was evident when the initial trailer comes out and everyone called for it to be just like the old games.

_________________

There is less focus on graphics with PS4? Or am I misunderstanding?

_________________
When should I open my eyes?!

Oh no, not with the actual PS4. I'm specifically talking about the climate. Reading developer interviews, I can't remember anyone mentioning graphics. It was all about the memory, how easy it was to develop for, the online bits, etc. People are all talking about how much they can do content-wise now. As far as gamers go, I read tons of comments about the graphics not being as impressive as they thought they'd be after the PS4 reveal, and there seemed to be quite a lot of discussion about games seeing more improvement from scale than from graphics. That's just what I'm gathering, though.

_________________

Cool. Thanks for the info, I haven't kept up to speed on the future (or even present) of gaming. I think gameplay is more important than graphics anyway.

_________________
When should I open my eyes?!

i seriously don't want graphics to get any "better".

There is a game with no graphics that has more content and is worth more in terms of replay ability then 90% of games today. But the lack of graphics literally makes the game unplayable for some people. So im not denying the importance of graphics either. But after seeing battlefield 4 gameplay and hearing people say the graphics suck...

How high is the bar raised? Why do the graphics need to be ANY BETTER?

I agree that so far what I've seen for PS4 looks very similar to PS3, as far as graphics go. I don't care about features. I just want the game to be colorful and fun. And I would NEVER EVER consider SSX Tricky a flop/bomb. This is the first time in all my years that I've ever heard those words associated with SSX Tricky. And I have to say it made me want to go on a rant to defend my favorite game ever. Thankfully, I held myself back.

_________________
When I die, I want to go peacefully like my Grandfather did, in his sleep -- not screaming, like the passengers in his car.

I've gotten excited for plenty of games that have been beyond gorgeous, only to find they forgot to actually include a playable form of a game.

_________________

- KotW -

I'm so scared that this is going to happen with Watch Dogs. The trailer was cool but looked scripted.

_________________

lol

Yes you do.

People try to say things like this all the time, but I don't think they really know what all they're implicating when they say it. More powerful consoles/better graphics LEAD DIRECTLY to better gameplay much of the time. Also better graphics don't always just equal things looking more realistic. The PS4/NewXbox will probably have an increase in fidelity of all game assets. That means, where as before only the main characters of the game would have detailed polycounts/textures, now every character will.

How does this help you and SSX? Created characters who are every bit as detailed and original as the ones Batty and Co. come up with. All because of increased graphics.

The South Park game. This is the first generation that allows us to have a SP game that actually looks exactly like the show. Increases in graphical power made that possible. Remember SP on the N64? Didn't look at all like the show did it?

Who knows what all that GDDR5 RAM will be able to add to SSX. I know draw distance and load times will be a thing of the past. Possibly procedural animation that will, within the context of speed and height, make your *basic* tricks look different every single time you do them.

Possibilities are endless.

_________________

Um... No i dont.

The shit costs money, time, and actually takes away from the gameplay half the time. And ill say it again, One of the best games of all time has NO GRAPHICS.

Why do i need to see the same trick animated differently each time? yeah that could be cool... but i would rather have a fully functional game that doesn't set everyone on fire with constant patches and dlc fixes, and makes sure the game doesn't break its own rules. I cant even play battlefield 3 anymore because of this shit. In fact, a lot of EA games were "unplayable"

Possibilities are endless? You mean very limited? We could have better character interaction, better multiplayer, better smoother controls, better tracks, no framerate issues, no clipping problems... but no, we want to see how realistic (or high def) things can get, which cant be much more detailed already because by default it costs so damn much to make a game.

i could make a huge rant about how things dont need to be any more realistic than they currently are. I appreciate detail but...

I think you're confusing several of these concepts and simply lumping them together. So let's break it down more simply shall we?

Graphics aren't everything but they're very important. Improvements to graphics and gameplay aren't mutually exclusive either. SSX2 will be running on superior hardware, so if EA put in effort equal to that of SSX2012 it would STILL look infinitely better. That's not taking away from the time devoted to the gameplay at all.

The way a game is made, the artists are the one focusing on graphics and textures, the programmers are the ones focused on mechanics, and feature set implementation etc. I don't know what this anti graphics stuff is all about but I think it's certainly misguided. Perhaps you'd be better suited just sticking to emulators and playing your backlog.

PS4 is going to be a powerhouse...so the graphics are definitely going to get *better*, and a lot better at that. I don't see how you can see a problem with that, but perhaps gaming retirement is in your future.

_________________

Do you seriously not see all these devs going bankrupt? I'm not saying its exclusively because of graphics. But its very difficult to meet demands, and one of the largest demands is over high definition. There are people that literally wont play a game because the graphics aren't good enough.

Also the power of the machine has nothing to do with what im saying, im talking about the effort to push visuals to its limit when you cant afford to THAT'S what i cant stand.

Also splitscreen would be in 2012 if the High Definition Standard didnt put such a hassle on the rendering team. But no we have to see our hand-lines in the snow at 60fps (which still isn't even constant).

Can i appreciate it? Yes. Was it worth it? I really don't think so. That would be my entire rant.

Also one team can affect an entirely different team.

I think that graphics and physics will keep getting better until they are finished (when they look and behave equal to real life). We will have physics down to the molecular level, have no doubt about that. At the moment we don't even have anywhere near to true h2o physics. There is a long, long way to go. And believe it, technology right now is SHIT compared to how it will be in the future. To me SSX 2012 already looks dated. The game is full of textures and models that don't look realistic.

As for the discussion about gameplay vs graphics. Gameplay wins every time for me and I don't think there is as much of a link between the two as you think, ShoTheEmcee. I can understand your argument, increased technology behind a game can potentially play a part into how good the gameplay is. I just don't think that is the case very often.



These are your examples to how more powerful consoles/better graphics LEAD DIRECTLY to better gameplay, yet none of those examples has anything to do with the gameplay. South Park didn't look like the show on the N64? So what? It's got nothing to do with the gameplay. I could say the same for each of your examples.

_________________
When should I open my eyes?!

Games graphics will keep increasing in quality until they are indistinguishable from reality.
Computer processing power doubles every 18 months. This has been going on since computers were invented.

If the human race survives for another 10,000 years (granted, that's a BIG if) ... then you have to consider that our descendants will run an 'ancestor program'.
If the human race survives for another 10,000 years and they run an ancestor program then you have to consider the possibilty that we are, in fact, living in one RIGHT NOW.
At least - some philosophers think this may be true.

Within this hypothesis there exists the possibilty of 'nested simulations' or 'recursive simulations'.
Perhaps you have played the game GTA where the character plays a computer game within the main game.
Well - imagine a massive series of simulations within simulations.... mirroring off into infinity and ultimately all housed within one massive super-computer.

http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html

_________________
__________________________________________________________________________________________

Me and my friend have discussed this possibility in the past. It comes closer to anything else that I can believe in. We used to talk about these kinds of possibilities because there is a game called 'Star Ocean, Till the End of Time'. In this game

*spoilers*

| Click to reveal hidden content

the characters travel to "4D space", a dimension higher than their own. There they discover that their own dimension is in fact not real but an MMORPG video game developed within this "4D space" dimension.

With the infinite of the universe, the 4.5 billion years old planet earth is, and the millions of years 'humans' have supposedly inhabited this planet, what is 10,000 years? If we have survived this long, together with our advances in evolution and intelligence, surely we can manage to keep it together for another 10,000.

_________________
When should I open my eyes?!

I want the next SSX game to have Katamari's graphics.

_________________

- KotW -

I think what happened is that me and him started talking about entirely different concepts of graphics. He is telling me why we need a better machine, (draw distance, physics and logic in games like skate, no frame issues, etc) While im ranting about why i think the idea that graphics take priority to the point where the game starts having issues is pure ridiculousness.

as do I.

_________________