What is Digg?Related by Keyword 
How are these related stories? Tell us!
- RoadDoggFL, on 10/10/2007, -17/+23To me, the biggest thing about this is that once the bleeding edge is an accepted sacrifice for console gaming, manufacturers can focus more on reliability and other forms of support. If your machine doesn't cost $500 to buy and $800 to make, you'll sell more and have more room to ensure the quality of areas other than graphics. Also, if consoles were to take a step back, the generational leaps would eventually be exactly the same. If the PS4 were to the PS3 as the Wii is to the GC, then the Wii's successor would likely match up fairly evenly to the PS4 and _their_ successors could have as big a leap as the PS2 and PS3 were at the cost of a Wii. Once that step back is taken for a generation, business as usual can commence.
I personally love this idea. I've always imagined that if the Xbox won and its philosophy as a console designed around the needs of developers took hold, this generation would be far more profitable and many more consoles would have been sold by now. Games would be easier to develop, if consoles cost less they'd be selling more, more games could be funded, and graphics would likely not fall behind too far because the ease of development could help offset the drop in raw power.
The problem with this is that even if such a routine did develop, nothing is stopping one of the console manufacturers (or a new party, I'm looking at you, Samsung) from coming in one generation with a PS3-like expensive machine that pushes graphical limits and blows everybody's minds. Oh well, like the article said, it's at least important to recognize the issue, not necessarily solve it.- superpezgeek2, on 10/10/2007, -6/+29huh?
- mokkos, on 10/10/2007, -10/+9tl;dr - "I'm a pretentious *****"
- asdfff, on 10/10/2007, -16/+8YEAH okay, we got it. XBOX GOOD, PS3 BAD, ME STRONG GO BAM! Geez, you can bury your fanboyism in 500 words and it still sticks out like a bad texture.
- AC1DREIGN, on 10/10/2007, -7/+13Fanboy or not, he raises a perfectly legitimate point. You idiots seem to forget that. Just because someone has an opinion or preference of their console choice doesn't mean that everything they say should be dismissed. His comment is by far the most reasonable one posted on this article but you all think OMG he haet sony he bad!!! Way to jump to conclusions as usual.
- triplehelix, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6roaddogg, i disagree with some of the things you said, but i dugg you up for a well thought out post.
- dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you want to see a step back in technology so we can see more games hit the shelf at cheaper prices. Er No!
Lets face it even if the consoles took a step back the newest pc's games would always be developed for the best technology around and rightfully so. So all we would see is an increase in costly pc sales because gaming fans want the best quality games available. This would be a more costy option for us gaming fans because updating a pc every year is far more expensive than buying a new console every five - ten years. All that your solution would do is slow down the developement of quality games like bioshock.
Imagine if they had adapted your philosiphy at the end of xbox PS2 era. Games now would have roughly the same graphics, so where would masterpieces like Bioshock and Gears of war fit in. Whats worse they are just the beginning of the era so in two - three years down the road when Gears and Bio both look like outdated and poor we would be stuck with games that still arnt reaching Gears of War standard. So granted there would be more out but they just wouldnt be as good.
If you stop looking at the individual companys (ie M$ and Sony) and start looking at the current situation in gaming terms you will see your proposed system of incremental improvements is sort of in place. We have gone from the PS2 to the gradual improvement of the XBOX then took a decent but not too big a leap of the 360 and eventually(in a couple of years) the PS3.
Another problem i can see would be the amount of people that would not upgrade their console if their wasnt much of a difference. There are still people playing PS2 versions of games becasue the way they see it is its cheaper and they get a decent part of the experiane - and thats from a decent graphical enhancement. If the next M$ console hardly increased the graphics at all, most would just keep buying the 360 version of the game because what else would they be getting.
The more i think about what you said the more and more i see problems with it. It just plain wouldnt work in any way at all. Because people would not be so bothered about increasing their system developers would continue to heavily make games for the current consoles. The likly result would be the new consoles completely fail and we would be stuck playing games that are no leap in any direction.
When you say "ensure the quality of areas other than graphics" All the next generation consoles have currently achieved that. The 360 has improved the way in which we play games online, while the PS3 has opened the door to huge games. Both consoles have the ability to get rid of loading times and focus heavily on the AI. How many other ways can you improve the system? And the beauty is they did all of this with a big jump in graphics.
"graphics would likely not fall behind too far because the ease of development could help offset the drop in raw power."
This is simply not true, the PS2 and XBOX that developers have had a huge amount of time but would still not be able to produce anything close to the graphics of 360 games in around 5 years. They are not even close to games like bioshock so there would be a definate fall behind in graphics to the PC alternatives.
I cant help but feel your comment was about trying to get more consoles on the shelf and more games to go with them. While this theoreticly could be the case would we really want it to be. So we have more games but none of them are special - or - we have less games but 99% of them are better then the previous generation gaming.
What your actually after is for the 360 and PS3 to have shelf lives double of what the PS2 and xbox had. This might just be the case with sony's machine as they have been touting the whole 10 year life where as the 360 will probably have been changed in that time which carries on the incremental steps. - The way it should be!
- dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you want to see a step back in technology so we can see more games hit the shelf at cheaper prices. Er No!
- dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1stupid digg comment system i replied to the wrong post
So you want to see a step back in technology so we can see more games hit the shelf at cheaper prices. Er No!
Lets face it even if the consoles took a step back the newest pc's games would always be developed for the best technology around and rightfully so. So all we would see is an increase in costly pc sales because gaming fans want the best quality games available. This would be a more costy option for us gaming fans because updating a pc every year is far more expensive than buying a new console every five - ten years. All that your solution would do is slow down the developement of quality games like bioshock.
Imagine if they had adapted your philosiphy at the end of xbox PS2 era. Games now would have roughly the same graphics, so where would masterpieces like Bioshock and Gears of war fit in. Whats worse they are just the beginning of the era so in two - three years down the road when Gears and Bio both look like outdated and poor we would be stuck with games that still arnt reaching Gears of War standard. So granted there would be more out but they just wouldnt be as good.
If you stop looking at the individual companys (ie M$ and Sony) and start looking at the current situation in gaming terms you will see your proposed system of incremental improvements is sort of in place. We have gone from the PS2 to the gradual improvement of the XBOX then took a decent but not too big a leap of the 360 and eventually(in a couple of years) the PS3.
Another problem i can see would be the amount of people that would not upgrade their console if their wasnt much of a difference. There are still people playing PS2 versions of games becasue the way they see it is its cheaper and they get a decent part of the experiane - and thats from a decent graphical enhancement. If the next M$ console hardly increased the graphics at all, most would just keep buying the 360 version of the game because what else would they be getting.
The more i think about what you said the more and more i see problems with it. It just plain wouldnt work in any way at all. Because people would not be so bothered about increasing their system developers would continue to heavily make games for the current consoles. The likly result would be the new consoles completely fail and we would be stuck playing games that are no leap in any direction.
When you say "ensure the quality of areas other than graphics" All the next generation consoles have currently achieved that. The 360 has improved the way in which we play games online, while the PS3 has opened the door to huge games. Both consoles have the ability to get rid of loading times and focus heavily on the AI. How many other ways can you improve the system? And the beauty is they did all of this with a big jump in graphics.
"graphics would likely not fall behind too far because the ease of development could help offset the drop in raw power."
This is simply not true, the PS2 and XBOX that developers have had a huge amount of time but would still not be able to produce anything close to the graphics of 360 games in around 5 years. They are not even close to games like bioshock so there would be a definate fall behind in graphics to the PC alternatives.
I cant help but feel your comment was about trying to get more consoles on the shelf and more games to go with them. While this theoreticly could be the case would we really want it to be. So we have more games but none of them are special - or - we have less games but 99% of them are better then the previous generation gaming.
What your actually after is for the 360 and PS3 to have shelf lives double of what the PS2 and xbox had. This might just be the case with sony's machine as they have been touting the whole 10 year life where as the 360 will probably have been changed in that time which carries on the incremental steps. - The way it should be!
- caddyalan, on 10/10/2007, -5/+36Console development shouldn't be so expensive that it discourages development teams and companies from trying offbeat or experimental games. That only leads to more of the same old games, just with super-duper graphics. Maybe it's just my age or my interests in retro games, but since 2002, about half of the games I've bought and liked were on the Gameboy Advance. I had very little interest in awesome graphics.
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16You have practically described the mainstream pc platform. games like defcon or darwinia thrive on the PC simply because it's so easy and cheap to develop for. That is why i don't think the pc platform will ever die.
- LordVance, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9PC will never die because, if Microsofts trend continues, eventually the XBOX and PC platforms will require virtually no porting to publish a game for both simultaneously.
As much as I hate to say it, Microsoft's long term goals for the Xbox are really, really ingenious. They are basically getting a Windows PC into every home, while spending significantly more time worrying about the developers than say, Sony. We also need to remember that 3D Modelling/Animation tools have a very long way to go still; the few developers that hopped onto the Z-Brush bandwagon and really given that program a shot will tell you just how much easier it is to create extremely detailed 3D models in a very short amount of time.
We are at a turning point in graphics really - it is not that they are just too complex for cheap development; it is mostly that hardware is finally taking a big leap from low-poly to high-poly capabilities. Developers are often working on these new intricite high-poly models the same way they would go about doing so in the low-poly world of the PS2/Xbox/GC generation; it works, but its slow and very tedious. Rapid development tools like Z-Brush will eventually make their way from the movie industry/FMV to really making a presence in the video game industry.- dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The only shame with microsofts plan is that windows pc's are fading fast, with more and more vendors like dell and hp offering linux operating systems which are cheaper and a vast amount of windows pc people moving towards macs because of their ability to run everything along with their excellent product line. Im not saying any time now but in maybe 5 or 6 years M$ will have lost a decent share of the home market.
Sure that still leaves millions of people out there with windows PC's but how many good enough to support hi end graphics and new games. With Apple securing deals with companies like EA along with the parallels running windows, apple are looking good and less people are turning to M$. I would guess that most hardcore gamers will be purchasing macs over the next few years as they are solid machines that can run windows games fine and have a good room for upgrading.
Eventually Macs will be in everybodys homes and because of this the majority of games will come out mac native and less and less developers will be developing for windows. Its just how it is. People are really put off by vista then they will finally warm too it and the next os will come out which will stop people getting vista but they will still be unsure of the next windows OS so all the time mac is profiting from the amount of rave reviews leapord gets. God do i get carried away when im drunk im sure i have lost my point ------------- ***** IT!
oh there it is - my prediction for 2011 when the next XBOX is released - M$ will have spent all the time in the world making integration for windows games and xbox games that it is seemless but by the time their new console reaches the masses there will be far less hardcore gamers with windows pcs.
- im probably wrong - god i feel so stuck that i should abandon this post now but that would be a waste of like the 5 minutes i took typing it. MY gawd what do i do er er er er er er er er er ***** it
Someone give me a banana and a tranqulizer
- dandonia, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1The only shame with microsofts plan is that windows pc's are fading fast, with more and more vendors like dell and hp offering linux operating systems which are cheaper and a vast amount of windows pc people moving towards macs because of their ability to run everything along with their excellent product line. Im not saying any time now but in maybe 5 or 6 years M$ will have lost a decent share of the home market.
- Shurikane, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3There's still a lot of ground to cover. I tried the PC port of Lost Planet and was greeted with tooltips referring to nothing but the Xbox 360 controller.
"MY KEYBOARD DOESN'T HAVE A LEFT TRIGGER, BUT THANK YOU ANYWAY!"
Two problems with video game industry as of now, PC and console alike:
A) Too many people going "OMG LOOK @ TEH GRAFICS!!!" Yes, a pretty game is good, but I see far too many idiots buying games simply because they look nice and then ~attempt~ to enjoy the gameplay. Priorities are not in their proper place here...
B) Too much too soon competition. The guy in the article raises a great point with the situation where every console company tries to one-up each other on a constant basis. Not that it isn't to be expected, but it makes things hard on both the devs and the gamers. The few that buy in get the shaft.- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1i agree, i still think Chrono Trigger was a better game than almost everything that's come out in the last 15 years. and that's sad. the graphics craze has killed the games. it was better when they couldn't fall back on shiny things and actually had to make fun and engaging games.
- LordVance, on 10/10/2007, -7/+9PC will never die because, if Microsofts trend continues, eventually the XBOX and PC platforms will require virtually no porting to publish a game for both simultaneously.
- pixelate, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4It's funny actually, the top 2 reviewed games for the 360 right now are Gears of War and Bioshock. I'd argue that both of these took some chances and opened up the genre a little more (or quite a bit more in BioShock's case).
But it's completely true that this generation's hardware has made the cost of entry higher than ever before. Developers and publishers need to earmark Hollywood size budgets to assure that the system's capabilities are being fully utilized-- and how often do you see huge budgets for movies that aren't sequels or rehashes or generic fluff? Same principle...- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yes but they are shooters and aren't exactly niche games now are they. What is sacrificed is the outright mad games (that sometimes succeed) and the niche areas like RPG's while the middle of the road tends towards mediocrity.
Really citing a shooter is indicative of the problem. As someone who has owned practically every console since the SNES and is an avid PC Gamer I'm tired of seeing shooters with a few more tricks. Bioshock and Gears are both excellent but I want to see things like M2:TW come to console, or maybe a stronger line up of RPG's. There is little ground to break with shooters really, much of what is in Bioshock was in Deus Ex (i.e. a shooter with some RPG elements, bioupgrades etc) with the theme seeming Doomish. Gears was more innovative IMHO (but isn't more fun).
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Yes but they are shooters and aren't exactly niche games now are they. What is sacrificed is the outright mad games (that sometimes succeed) and the niche areas like RPG's while the middle of the road tends towards mediocrity.
- Bega, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4except you know, PSN and XBLA are basically a great platform for the more offbeat titles. How is it not cheap to develop for when they can make a profit off of a $10 game?
- lacronicus, on 10/10/2007, -1/+16You have practically described the mainstream pc platform. games like defcon or darwinia thrive on the PC simply because it's so easy and cheap to develop for. That is why i don't think the pc platform will ever die.
- frsrblch, on 10/10/2007, -6/+11New fangled HDTV's probably didn't help. Sony and MS were under pressure to make something that would be future proof, and you need that horsepower to display the graphics gamers expected at those resolutions. Just think, the PS3 has to render 6x as many pixels as it's predecessor. No surprise that it is an overpriced beast.
- andydumi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I agree to a certain extent.
We bought an HDTV and playing PS2 games on it gets quite ugly at 60 inches. Not because the games are ugly themselves, but because jagged edges and low res textures become so much more apparent. I think the PS3 and X360 have got it right in the long run... but the Wii will probably see a HD successor before either the X360 or the PS3 are dead.
As to developers, well it does take a longer time to make a game, but its doable, as there are obviously great looking games on all consoles, and as they learn it wont be any worse than previous generations. Plus the availability of the PSN/Live allows begginer/small devs to make small games and full fledged EA/Ubisoft size devs to make full blown games. - triplehelix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3exactly. lets see what the console pie chart looks like in 3 years.
one of the biggest thing this editorial neglects, is the fact that the ps2 is still selling very well, and has new titles shipping as i type this.
- andydumi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3I agree to a certain extent.
- TKn00b, on 10/10/2007, -2/+71C'mon westwood college I know you guys can tighten up them graphics faster than that.
- chizzlechest420, on 10/10/2007, -6/+6the level 3 graphics need to be tightened up a bit.....
- robocop1, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1That sound they used in the last level needs to be in there too
- TheMrEman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean this one?
::pfitchoo::
Yeah!
- TheMrEman, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You mean this one?
- Bamborzled, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10They said I'd never get ANYWHERE with these video games!
- MrGordonLiu, on 10/10/2007, -9/+37I've been gaming since the Atari 2600, and with each passing generation I fall more in love with good graphics. I love this HD era. I love the way things look, and the way things play. I've got a projector with a 110'' screen and games like BioShock just look glorious. Highly detailed worlds really help to draw me into the game. Good sound design helps as well. Real orchestrated soundtracks with good voice acting and a well written script are also crucial to creating the over all experience. What I want is everything - good gameplay, good graphics, good art design, good sound. I don't see a reason why one should be sacrificed for the other, or why, as gamers, we should want one over the other. We should demand all aspects of every game we play to be amazing.
- andydumi, on 10/10/2007, -3/+3Good point. No one aspect is so important and overpowering as to allow us to cancel out the others.
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -4/+12Unless, of course, the people making the games are on a budget.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If Sony and Microsoft had announced systems that were only 3 times as powerful as their last gen systems, fans would be raving about how great they are, and they'd be selling.
Developers would be able to not lose their shirts, and best of all, would be less afraid to take chances on games that aren't sure-fire hits.- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8The sole thrust of this generation was 'To bring PC power to the console'. Now with recent developments like the Core 2 and the quad core processors it shows just how mad this sort of target was. Of course it was always going to be that way but it could have saved them a whole lot of trouble if they just accepted that a moving target was not going to be hit. When the X-Box was announced it was considered comparable to a PC, when it was released it was miles behind. Same will happen next time 'This time we will give you PC power' then by the time it comes around we will have Core 3 and the promises will be broken again.
- peyotea, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1sorry. have u played bioshock? i mean, u gotta have the graphics & processing to pull this game off. as much as wii brings to the fold, they can't tell a story like bioshock no matter what happens.
- Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5if you cant afford to make it good, then why are you wasting everyones time?
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5If Sony and Microsoft had announced systems that were only 3 times as powerful as their last gen systems, fans would be raving about how great they are, and they'd be selling.
- reyoo30309, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1All fine and well just as long as me and you as the consumer can pay for all this...
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2All consumers will never be able to pay for all this. It has to be important enough to a certain segment t warrant the price. Sony and MS are shooting for a different segment of the market than Nintendo and they have each priced their products accordingly. Even the PS3 is not too much to pay for those who value what it is and can pay for it.
- Cloud7654, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Yeah, but can you imagine what games are gonna look like when we get to the point where BioShock has terrible graphics? It's hard to imagine, since games like that look so good. I wonder how much better they can possibly get.
- CNAIF, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2HD Photo realism, tactile response covering your entire body(much like the military has), complete visual and sound coverage.
can't think of much more off hand.
- CNAIF, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2HD Photo realism, tactile response covering your entire body(much like the military has), complete visual and sound coverage.
- stafunk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2http://advancedmn.com.nyud.net:8080/article.php?artid=10096
- EasY_TargeT, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3http://advancedmn.com.nyud.net:8080/article.php?artid=10096
slow but working - swrostmore, on 10/10/2007, -10/+3IMO the only solution is fewer, more expensive games that are highly marketed a la hollywood films.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Stating the problem as the solution is no answer at all.
Your solution would leave us with an endless array of mindless clones. Then again, that's the way Hollywood works (though admittedly there have been some decent films in recent years like 300). - Monk22, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1"would leave us with an endless array of mindless clones". apparently we already have some, he was clearly being sarcastic because there has never ever been a good movie game. ever.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5Stating the problem as the solution is no answer at all.
- Cyber_Akuma, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1Awwwww comon.
38 diggs and only hit front page 5 minutes ago and its already dead?- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Screen grab:
http://img248.imageshack.us/img248/1296/sscw1.png
- Renton, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Screen grab:
- eazhar, on 10/10/2007, -6/+13Editorial: Paying the Price
August 31, 2007
by: Josh Valone
Does the console performance race actually hurt the industry?
Price drops have dominated Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 headlines the last few weeks and it’s easy to see why. The barrier of entry this generation has risen considerably for the average consumer and early adopters want to see those walls torn down as quickly as possible. The incredible horsepower under the hood of the two HD behemoths are the main cause of these high price tags, and when you remember that both hardware manufacturers had to suffer hefty losses just to reach those prices, it’s staggering to consider the cost of that performance.
Sony and Microsoft aren’t the only ones feeling the crunch, though; developers are having a much harder time acclimating themselves to the new hardware architecture and as a result gamers are forced to wait through delays for titles like Grand Theft Auto IV. With hardware cycles being so short, it’s possible the PS3 and 360 won’t even come close to being fully utilized before they’re replaced thanks to the longer development cycles. Had these companies opted for a slightly smaller visual leap, prices would be lower, developers’ jobs would be easier, gamers would have more titles faster and the hardware could reach its full potential before it was replaced. Everyone at all levels of the gaming industry are paying the price right now and it’s time we began questioning why this has happened and if it’s worth it.
Having the most powerful hardware has been a major selling point since the beginning of gaming, ever since George Plimpton began an ad campaign pushing the Intellivision as graphically superior to the Atari 2600. That tradition has endured through the years with "Blast Processing", "64 is double 32", "It’s Thinking", and the PS2's Emotion Engine. The more-is-better philosophy is clearly evident in the design of both the 360 and PS3. The Nintendo Wii faced a major backlash when it was initially announced it would “only” be two times more powerful then its predecessor; dramatic improvements are so commonplace that it was almost insulting that anything less would be provided. Hardcore players expect a certain level of improvement with each successive generation and while that is both reasonable and healthy for the artistic future of game design it seems we’ve reached a tipping point where it’s being overdone to the detriment of everyone.
The wallets of both gamers and corporations are the most obvious benefactors of smaller increases in horsepower. $400 is really pushing it if you expect mass market success and, as has been proven by lackluster sales of the PS3, $600 is too expensive even for most dedicated gamers. With hardware being cheaper to produce, the manufacturers could drop prices sooner to entice the less fanatical consumers and install bases would grow faster as a result. One of the reasons the Nintendo Wii has taken off so quickly is the $250 pricetag. Its library is not nearly as strong as the 360 and only equal to the PS3 and yet it’s running circles around both. While Nintendo will say that it’s all because of the Blue Ocean revolution, the console being cheap in comparison to competitors is a huge factor in its success. If we consider $400 to be the maximum allowable price for a successful game console and the manufacturer is only allowed to lose $50 per unit, the machine could still be graphically impressive. Nintendo has provided much less than the ideal amount of hardware improvement per generation while Sony and Microsoft have overshot it. The median $400 machine breaking even would still be able to output HD graphics and run the Unreal 3 engine, but the maximum returns wouldn’t be as impressive as what we’re seeing in titles such as MGS4. Then again, the industry would be much more stable. Rather then losing billions on unsuccessful hardware sporting bleeding-edge tech, a machine designed to break even from day one at $400 would still gain the manufacturer at least some profit even in defeat. The Gamecube is an example of this philosophy in action; regardless of your thoughts on the console or its unit sales, Nintendo never lost money on the platform's sales.
By trading a certain degree of graphical prowess for a lower price, the industry would enjoy faster adoption rates for new hardware and thus a greater variety of games. At the beginning of each new generation, publishers are forced onto the precipice of disaster, and this hardware cycle has been the most brutal one yet. With fresh, complex technology, a single mistake can set a company back years. In order to create a game like Final Fantasy XIII, companies have to release a half dozen DS remakes to finance the project. Developers simply are not taking risks anymore. It’s foolish to commit millions to a project that could bankrupt your company when you can instead carbon-copy Halo or GTA and see better returns. Faster adoption rates will make risks more likely to happen because a large enough install base can support niche titles.
The PS2 is an example of a platform that enjoyed incredible lineup diversity after it had gained a large install base. In the last two years of the console’s life publishers were able to take chances on hit-or-miss titles like Katamari Damacy, Disgaea and Guitar Hero. They saw excellent returns as a result, but if the PS2 development cycle had been as long as three years, as is the case with some major PS3 titles, these types of games would have never been released. We certainly need reasonable hardware improvement to drive the artistic side of our pastime, but if that aspect is overemphasized as is the case right now, it dramatically limits innovative concepts because of fiscal responsibilities. With smaller advancements in hardware, the risk-factor for publishers decreases dramatically and everyone benefits as a result. It is not in our best interest to have a handful of epic titles every five years when we could instead enjoy dozens of them if we resolved to sacrifice a smidgen of technology in the process. It’s a classic case of doing what is necessary to have your cake and eat it too. The industry has gotten so wrapped up in baking this cake that they haven’t quite figured out how to manage eating it.
The worst part of overcompensation in hardware is that developers will never even max out the machines before they are swiftly replaced. Last generation, neither the Xbox nor GameCube were pushed to their absolute limits consistently before they were retired. If this generation lasts the standard five years, then it is a certainty that the 360 and PS3 will suffer a similar fate. Sony and Microsoft promise longer hardware cycles this time around but that is a hollow statement. The nature of this industry is that the winner of each generation will seek to prolong their success while the loser will push for a quick reset and shove new hardware onto the market for a fresh shot at the top. The Xbox 360 is an excellent example of this. The original Xbox was defeated soundly so Microsoft put it down after four years and moved onto a new piece of hardware for another shot at first place. If things continue as they are and the Nintendo Wii opens up a large lead, do we seriously believe the other two manufacturers will stand pat for the next six or seven years and allow Nintendo to rake in that much profit relatively unopposed? Absolutely not. One of them will get trigger happy, the other will follow, and Nintendo will be forced to do the same as a result. The cycle never ends. When this fact of life is understood, it’s easy to see why a mutually beneficial neutering of new hardware needs to take place. All three companies stand to gain more with conservative hardware advances. The losers can profit and the quick reset they will force onto the winner won’t happen before developers have done all that they can with the platform.
There are certainly many road blocks to implementing such a drastic change in policy when creating new hardware. Microsoft is a huge deterrent in and of themselves. With endless finances to tap into, the fact that they can force these financial risks onto competitors with less resources is a gigantic advantage. Sony’s drive to integrate their other electronics division projects into the PlayStation is another obstacle. What they stand to gain through promoting other tech may be too promising to ignore in favor of conservative practices. Even Nintendo, the only manufacturer who didn’t enter the arms race, could shun this method. Why would they make a powerful machine designed to break even when they’ve found such success with a dramatically underpowered platform making pure profit from day one? These are all excellent reasons for why this sort of utopian console method will never be realized, but it’s important to at least understand that this suicidal tendency to totally sacrifice profit is not the only path to follow.
Gamers have become accustomed to the arms race, and the fact it is never questioned is troubling. It isn’t helping anyone in particular and yet everyone defends it as if it is their greatest hope. With more conservative hardware successors, the manufacturers can profit, user bases can flourish, publishers can take risks, consumers get more games, and hardware will be maxed-out before it is retired. Hopefully the incredible losses being suffered this generation by all parties, and the general disinterest in HD hardware by casual consumers, will make companies open their minds to a new way of business. The graphical leap will still take place with a larger difference then the GameCube and Wii but less so then the difference between the PS2 and PS3. If we make these sacrifices together as an industry, we all stand to gain much in our own way. Manufacturers and publishers profit, developers can take daring risks, and gamers can enjoy cheaper hardware with more diverse libraries. The bleeding edge of technology may be enticing but perhaps it’s the modest advancements that bear the most fruit.- robocop1, on 10/10/2007, -17/+1Phasellus nisl pede, mattis quis, fringilla sit amet, lacinia id, mauris. Nunc quis massa vel lacus placerat fermentum. Curabitur pulvinar eros id mi. Nullam ac massa et est tincidunt eleifend. Donec vel nisl. Maecenas sagittis egestas nisi. Cum sociis natoque penatibus et magnis dis parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus. Mauris risus odio, nonummy eu, blandit id, aliquet quis, urna. Mauris dui massa, vestibulum at, vulputate rhoncus, scelerisque at, velit. Aliquam erat volutpat. Ut elementum egestas leo. Fusce sed diam. Nunc eleifend. Duis fringilla neque interdum sapien. Duis sed est eget metus hendrerit iaculis. Nulla id dolor. In hac habitasse platea dictumst. Phasellus eu nunc at nibh rhoncus fermentum. Nam nunc enim, ultrices eu, mattis vel, viverra vitae, libero. Maecenas viverra ullamcorper nunc.
- jnosanov, on 10/10/2007, -7/+11The next generation will not see such a giant graphical leap because by then HD will just barely be the norm, and the difference will be more like from Playstation 1 to Playstation 2.This generation's shift coincided with the SD-HD shift, and that is why the graphical difference is so huge.
- robocop1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Can i borrow your time machine?
- jnosanov, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10SD was the standard for over fifty years... we don't need a time machine to guess what will happen to HD adoption rates in the next 5!
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What are the natural wastage and replacement rates for TV's. HD will start to become mainstream when they no longer sell SD TV's. Then it's just a matter of how long all those SD TV's will last.
Very few will rush out and buy an HD TV just because it's an HD TV. Most will buy the cheapest TV that fits their size range and then only when their current TV breaks down. There just isn't a clamour for them.- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Have you been in any retail outlet in the U.S. in the last 5 years. Try and find a TV that isn't HD and wear comfortable shoes.
SD TV has gone the way of the Cell Phone without a camera.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Have you been in any retail outlet in the U.S. in the last 5 years. Try and find a TV that isn't HD and wear comfortable shoes.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What are the natural wastage and replacement rates for TV's. HD will start to become mainstream when they no longer sell SD TV's. Then it's just a matter of how long all those SD TV's will last.
- jnosanov, on 10/10/2007, -2/+10SD was the standard for over fifty years... we don't need a time machine to guess what will happen to HD adoption rates in the next 5!
- hansenite44, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1IMO Microsoft and Sony will improve graphics but it wont be drastic and their main focus will be on implementing a controller like the Wii has. I think Nintendo will have the pressure to upgrade to HD graphics.
- n0c0ntr0l, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You may be right, you may be wrong. Whilst Microsoft and Sony will feel the pressure to upgrade towards a wii state of accesibility I doubt they would ignore the bump in graphics. As for nintendo they will have to move to HD and have far more powerful machines as they will need to be accessable to all developers.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Nintendo will have to conform to what the standard is and it has already changed. Five years is a lifetime in computer tech terms and Multi core, advanced Physics and graphics processors will be the norm, hell they already are.
- triplehelix, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3actually, for the reason's you stated, i think the next graphical leap will be even more impressive. the shift is just starting from standard to high def, and sometime in this cycle will reach a critical mass, but the next cycle HD will be the defacto design goal.
- robocop1, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Can i borrow your time machine?
- NiGHTSChao, on 10/10/2007, -12/+6Buried
Once again people fail to realize that sound, gameplay and graphics are all linked together- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Yes, because the graphics and sound were so horrendous in the last generation that we were unable to really enjoy any of the games that came out.
A game can't be fun if it doesn't look better than Resident Evil 4, right?- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't go so far as to say the last gen wasn't fun, but you must admit the AI becomes predictable very quickly in most games.
It won't be good enough until the AI can fool you into thinking there is a real person playing you. Graphics won't be good enough until you strain to distinguish it from real life. Progress is never a bad thing and If developers are having a hard time with it now they will have an easier time in the future.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I wouldn't go so far as to say the last gen wasn't fun, but you must admit the AI becomes predictable very quickly in most games.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -5/+6Yes, because the graphics and sound were so horrendous in the last generation that we were unable to really enjoy any of the games that came out.
- Cornflake917, on 10/10/2007, -2/+12I think graphics is an important part of a game, but people don't realize that better hardware doesn't always equate to better graphics. I mean, yeah, you can pump out more polygons, and clearer textures but that doesn't always mean that things are going to be better to look at. There are still games on the SNES that I still enjoy visually. Also, if you provide a architecture that confusing to program the developers are going to have a harder producing good graphics. It's not about the size of the hardware, but how you use it =)
- Philodox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+92d games age much better than 3d ones.
- Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Indeed, a lot of original PS1 games are almost impossible to play because they look so godawful. That is, unless you run on an emulator.
Even Atari games can be played without burning out your retinas.- grumbel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Its often not so much the look, but simply the frame-rates. I can live with a few polygons less, but when the frames per second are approaching single-digit values it gets quite painful. Which is also the reason why 2D games still look fine, most of them have very solid 30 or 60fps, just like most current day games.
- Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm not really referring to polygon count, that really doesn't matter, IMO. What makes it unplayable is the super low-res textures and the low screen resolution. A breathing character's head will move like 10 pixels on the screen because of the low resolution.
- Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5Indeed, a lot of original PS1 games are almost impossible to play because they look so godawful. That is, unless you run on an emulator.
- Philodox, on 10/10/2007, -3/+92d games age much better than 3d ones.
- MaTT2011, on 10/10/2007, -4/+10I couldn't agree any more.
But the most depressing aspect with industry trends is that the consumers who end up being victims of this arms race are so complacent and lazy that the mere mention of the concept "gameplay" or that graphics may just not be everything usually warrants, from these consumer-zombies, angry responses and general hostility towards anything that THEY think would impede the improvement of their chosen hobby. The problem is that they have NO IDEA what constitutes an actual "improvement" because they are trained like Pavlov's dogs to salivate at the mere sight of highly detailed weapons models with HDR around their cookie cutter violent male fantasy character. They are trained to beg for that which has the least to do with the actual quality of their hobby: graphics.
No doubt this message will get a response, the usual being; "well, like, man, dont you think that gameplay is only as good as the kind that graphics can provide" or some nonsense like that.- SteveMax, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1well, like, man, dont you think that gameplay is only as good as the kind that graphics can provide? :)
- gh0st3000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I agree, i like beautifully rendered graphics as much as the next guy,but i've played Xcom (a classic) as much as Oblivion, and there are many circumstances where gameplay trumps graphics. If they don't update Counter Strike's graphics for 5 more years, people will still play it because they love the gameplay. A pretty, shallow game is ok now, but I guarantee no one's going to be playing it years from now.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Ah, X-Com. Many a fun hour killing Sectoids and Mutons. That truly was a ground breaking series and Microprose (via Hasbro) going under like that killing the series was one of saddest moments in the history of gaming IMHO. Every game in that series was a hit and added something.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Best game ever made is still Planescape: Torment. Yes it's ugly, yes it's still great.
Graphics are entirely separate from gameplay though they can enhance the overall package. Would Torment be better if Annah was rendered in full 3D with a bazillion triangles, of course it would. However if chasing my dream Annah reduced the quality of the gameplay it would be entirely a waste of time.
That is the problem. Not graphics in and of itself but the pursuit of graphics at the expense of gameplay. It is simply uneconomical to do both in all but the most mainstream of genres. The problem with games like Torment is as RPG's this graphics load is expanded dramatically as they are already games that require more artwork than average. Add the niche market and it's no wonder there are few to no good RPG's on the 360 right now.
- metkillerjoe, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I have a podcast called Nostalgia Gaming (search in the podcast section of digg), which in its FIRST episode talked about graphics and content and what it was doing to the industry. I mean you have to get a degree in art to make graphics for games now. On top of that, most games I see don't have that much of a plot. I come from the SNES generation (which was my first console), so I have seen the giant leap from that kind of side-scroller to the 3D games we have now. I mean, even Zelda is better than some games out there. My friend still plays it.
- CitizenSnips1, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1You hit the nail right on the head
- Ventolin, on 10/10/2007, -5/+17The more people care about graphics the less people care about story and gameplay. Most games on the snes and ds are better than the ps3 or 360, imo.
- SambekZX, on 10/10/2007, -1/+11Console makers and developers should take more cues from the field of human psychology and perception. Humans have a limited capacity to absorb detail at any one time. The brain focuses on "important" features then discards the rest, even filling in gaps (such as the blind spot we have due to the optic nerve). By incorporating such knowledge, the gaming experience should be maintainable and even enhanced without devotion to super-detailed graphics. I just played Phoenix Wright on the DS, a simple 2D adventure game. The graphics were clean, but the animations were very simple. Yet, the characters seemed alive and the story was very compelling due to the power of suggestion, letting the imagination draw implications on its own. I couldn't put the game down for several days!
- ihate2reg4u, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I wonder if eye tracking could turn the level of detail up or down depending on what you're looking at.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I think there is a little more to it than what you consciously perceive. It's more a matter of how hard does your brain have to work to suspend disbelief. The more well done a games graphics, sound and they behavior of the characters mimics real human behavior the more the game pulls you into that other reality. The Wii does that as well, but rather than concentrating solely on what happens on the screen, they put the emphasis on the users physical movements to get the sense of being there - doing that across.
- MedHead, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I just checked out a video of Phoenix Wright's graphics, and, uh... no.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -3/+7I find the games i still enjoy most are the games on the 2600, nes, sega genesis, and snes (unless they are games I've played to death, and i have). ***
Half Life 2 was released in November 2004 and bioshock august 2007 almost 3 years later. Yet only when you start talking about details and really do side by side comparisons does the difference in graphics become apparent. Hell without any really significant modification the source engine can do all the things that the Bioshock (Unreal 3) engine can do and according to valve that is EXACTLY what will happen with half life 2 episode 2 which is due in 2 months. Compare this to the difference between Wolfenstien 3d and doom, or doom and quake, or quake and quake2, quake2 and unreal (most of which were not separated by three years) and you realize the graphics is nearing a plateau. For over 5 years now any "significant" improvement to graphics have been in the arena of effects, ie improved lighting, filtered (soft) shadows, etc. However during the same time frame you note that ALL of the big break out games are not the ones with the best graphics. They are the ones with improvements in game play or methodology. Half Life 2, Bioshock, Metroid Prime, Halo, Prince of Persia, God of War. ***
It is past time for graphics to take a back seat to game play. We have achieved all that we need to achieve when it comes to graphics. Anything after that is simply improvements to the "icing" which will take time and much more significant advances in technology than before. Graphics will only evolve from here, the revolutions are going to happen in A.I. and Physics. Thats where the focus needs to be as Half Life 2 and Bioshock so ably demonstrate.- ihate2reg4u, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Someone from Sony once said that graphics would soon experience diminishing returns and the PS3 or PS4 would have a ten year life span. That would be great for gamers wallets.
- cgeorge, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You just cited a bunch of games that had some of the most technically advanced graphics available on their platform at the time of release. And you forgot the biggest success that didn't: World of Warcraft.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your right. However World of Warcraft is an MMO. They are exempt from the comparison unless you compare only against other MMOs. MMOs are 1 part game and 10 parts community. The dynamic is just too different to form an accurate comparison outside of other MMOs.
Your also right that I compared numerous games who's graphics were stellar to other games who's graphics were stellar. In fact that was in some ways the point. Allow me to mention some games who's graphics were sub-par but still managed to be very successful because of innovative gameplay. Thief and its successors. SimCity and its successors. Allow me to point out some games that bombed despite their graphics. Unreal Tournament 2003. Descent 3. I think that rounds out my argument nicely.- logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Not to start a debate here, but I actually think that MMOs should be almost entirely focused on PVE content, with incentives for co-operation with other players. WoW does this well by making PvP combat optional and making it easy for people to accomplish quest objectives as a group. I could hardly care less about the "community" aspect of WoW, because I play it single player or co-op about 99% of the time.
- logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0WoW ran on a fairly decent engine for a 2004 game, the developers made everything look just the way it does because it would render well on most desktops and had a unique artistic feel.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Your right. However World of Warcraft is an MMO. They are exempt from the comparison unless you compare only against other MMOs. MMOs are 1 part game and 10 parts community. The dynamic is just too different to form an accurate comparison outside of other MMOs.
- bassoondux, on 10/10/2007, -5/+4I enjoyed reading that article until I got to the picture of the writer at the end. Couldn't he have done his readers a big favor and simply left that photo out? *There's* an example of when graphics matter. . .
- dslgunstar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Wow, way to be a asshat.
- Durendall, on 10/10/2007, -4/+0I prefer the idea of only a few genius games coming out in a year to the idea of 12 or 14. Thing is I have a giant box of games sitting at home, of these I've beat at most 1/3 of them. I never get the gusto to finish them, there's always a new game I want to play or, you know, life to attend to. There are so many great games that are being missed in the market right now, it's quite neat to be able to see ps3 and wii games come out and know of every game that comes out, and decide whether or not to try them. I like the direction the gaming industry is going personally, although the thought of losing money on every system they sell is suicidal (who taught them business anyway?). Games like FFXIII is a great thing, I am already highly anticipating this game, even though it's at least a year and a bit out still. Waiting shall sweeten thy reward, BE PATIENT DAMNIT!
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -4/+18What's awesome is, that even with 120+ million PS2's sold in the last generation, the vast majority of game developers either went out of business, or had to fold into Ubisoft, Activision, or EA.
Now they are forced to lose even more money, developing for systems that have less than 1/10th the install base of the PS2 and will cost them at least 3 times as much to develop for, on average. (More in the case of AAA titles.)
Sony and Microsoft clearly didn't give two ***** about the developers that they work with, or they wouldn't have put them into this position.
Once again, it's up to sales of Nintendo products to float this industry, as has been admitted by Ubisoft recently who said that they have to finance their 360 and PS3 games with the sales from their Wii titles.
The sad thing is, that this was all foreseable over two years ago.
Were it not for the Wii and DS, I've been of the belief that we would be looking at the second crash of the videogame industry.
Sony and Microsoft need to look beyond themselves if they ever wish to make this a thriving industry where companies other than retailers enjoy the profits.- asdfff, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2I've got news for you, you dumb fanboy. Nintendo could just as easily release a controller for the gamecube instead of the Wii.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Clearly you haven't played Metroid Prime 3, or you'd know they *do* have a more powerful system.
I want this entire industry to thrive, including Sony and Microsoft. I own both of their last gen systems.
But that doesn't mean that they shouldn't be criticized for their limited thinking. Nor should you.- grumbel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1### you'd know they *do* have a more powerful system.
Yeah, its more powerful then the Gamecube, as in 1.5 times as powerful, while a normal generation jump in the past meant that you got around 10 times more power. - wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4wow 10 times and 1.5 times. BTW how did you come by these measurements?
But lets just use these "measurements." Your comparison isn't of power but of graphical improvement. Your absolutely right that in the past graphics improved "10 times" where the difference from game cube and wii is only "1.5 times." The power IS however still "10 times" greater. Wii is as much of an improvement over the gamecube as the ps2 is over the psx. Difference? It takes "10 times" as much power to create "1.5 times" as much perceivable graphical improvement as it used to. In the past it was just a matter of pumping out more polygons with higher resolution textures. The problem is that pinnacle of what this can be taken to (visually) is Terminator 2. Now there are things that need to be done which are much more taxing such as drawing accurate shadows, dynamic lighting, and bump mapping to turn The T-1000 into the T-X from Terminator 3. Those features have a higher power/result ratio.
Not saying Nintendo couldn't or shouldn't have done better. Just pointing out that the days of a "10 times" improvement in graphics every 3 years is over. Need proof? Well look at the ps3. Even with all its fancy power it can only do "3 times" better graphics.
- grumbel, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1### you'd know they *do* have a more powerful system.
- MarkKezner, on 10/10/2007, -0/+10@asdfff: What the hell does the Wii controller have to do with anything he just said? He's talking about their business models you *****. Who's the fanboy again?
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Don't forget there is no technical or legal barrier to MS or Sony or developers for that matter coming up with their own Wii style controllers.Sony already made a half assed poorly executed attempt and I can see MS doing the same.
Remember you can't patent Idea's only your own unique way of expressing them.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Clearly you haven't played Metroid Prime 3, or you'd know they *do* have a more powerful system.
- Optic7, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8The truth, very well said!
- mushoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Absolutely. I like to pose it as a question to people. Who would you rather buy a gaming console from; the company whose prime directive is to make a stable profit from its console and games, or the company whose console is just a vessel they can use to peddle their other products and "innovations?"
- asdfff, on 10/10/2007, -16/+2I've got news for you, you dumb fanboy. Nintendo could just as easily release a controller for the gamecube instead of the Wii.
- bj00rn, on 10/10/2007, -11/+3This has been the best gaming year for me in decades.. I'm truly enjoying Bioshock and wouldn't have it any other way. Only this generation of systems could do the complete package of visuals sound and gameplay in this way. I wholeheartedly embrace progression, and we wouldn't have games like Bioshock without it.
Progression does not need Wii, progression needs more common sense patent laws. As long as Nintendo holds asinine patents concerning control devices, the Wii does in fact hold progression back, more powerful systems does not.- reyoo30309, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bioshock could still be easily released for the PC. Now I am not a PC fan boy but the PC has show continuous development as gaming platform over the years.
Secondly with lose patent laws what incentive is there to develop better technology at all? Think hypothetically for a moment you as a member of the game industry are going to spend time and money to research something new, if it fails you gain nothing but lose a lot. If you make something worth wild your competitors only steal your ideas.- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's not as easy to steal ideas as you claim. In any case the expenses of developing the wiimote aren't exceedingly high, it isn't new technology but a rehash of a few old ones. The others would need their own implementation and given the wiimote is based on proven and understood technologies this would amount to 99% of the cost Nintendo made.
Really patent advocates do the system no favours by taking minor (in terms of cost) changes and touting them as mass expenses that need to be protected. The patent system was designed to protect the wheel, combustion engine and the aeroplane, not a flipping wiimote. That such minor changes are protected shows the failure of the system rather than it's success.- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If that were true we would all be driving one kind of car, using one kind of PC, the list is vast.
- theaceoffire, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5*cough* it was released for the PC *cough*
- bj00rn, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1edit: nevermind
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1It's not as easy to steal ideas as you claim. In any case the expenses of developing the wiimote aren't exceedingly high, it isn't new technology but a rehash of a few old ones. The others would need their own implementation and given the wiimote is based on proven and understood technologies this would amount to 99% of the cost Nintendo made.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+8Bioshock could have been done without the extensive water and lighting effects on a ps2 easily. Would it have been as immersive? Probably not. However, there is more to Bioshock that makes it immersive and most of that is not graphics related.
Progression truly doesn't NEED the Wii, it's just that the Wii is currently progressing further than other consoles in a shorter period of time.
Patents are not going to stifle innovation in the console industry. I'm sorry that is just bunk. Nintendo can't patent motion control technology as a whole without running aground of the fact that there are existing patents for certain computer mouses that it conflicts with. Ps4 and Xbox 1080 will almost certainly have soem level of motion control and probably more than that. If the Wii didn't have motion control then the ps3 wouldn't have it and nether would the next generation of consoles. Your arguement regarding Nintendo and patents doesn't hold gravel, much less water. Take your Nintendo anti-fanboyism elsewhere.- bj00rn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Super Mario 64 is my number 3 favorite game during my 25 years as a gamer. Ocarina of Time is in my top 10, I've bought every Nintendo system including handhelds except one.. So I guess I do a bad job as a Nintendo-hater then.
Stop labeling people you don't know.
The Wii's low power is hindering progression, and the 360, PS3 and the PC's lack of a Wii remote is hindering progression. But gaming is still fun as ever, so..- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I promise you PS3 and 360 could do motion control tomorrow if they do it slightly different and no judge in the world would rule against them if they did it right. My Wii controller is very good but no controller can't be improved upon.
They should each send Nintendo a thank you note for validating the concept and taking the risk.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4I promise you PS3 and 360 could do motion control tomorrow if they do it slightly different and no judge in the world would rule against them if they did it right. My Wii controller is very good but no controller can't be improved upon.
- bj00rn, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Super Mario 64 is my number 3 favorite game during my 25 years as a gamer. Ocarina of Time is in my top 10, I've bought every Nintendo system including handhelds except one.. So I guess I do a bad job as a Nintendo-hater then.
- reyoo30309, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1Bioshock could still be easily released for the PC. Now I am not a PC fan boy but the PC has show continuous development as gaming platform over the years.
- FiP0, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6dugg for the author's face.
- YARLY, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Buried for pop-over text ads. We stand up to them, they stop the B.S.
- Promantarius, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I don't want this to sound like I support that type of advertising, because I don't, but you could always choose to use a browser that doesn't allow pop-ups to function or even one that allows you to hide advertisements for pages you don't wish to view them on. You'd be sticking it to them more by using their bandwidth and refusing to view invasive advertisements at the same time :)
- deathweaver108, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Games are about immersion! People want to fly around, shoot things, drive fast cars. Graphic only help with immersion. If the game doesn't create a suspension of disbelief... nothing will save the game.
- gh0st3000, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4If the gameplay is crap, that does a whole lot more to destroy the immersion than so-so graphics do. Gamers are willing to sacrifice graphics for awesome gameplay, not the other way around.
- reyoo30309, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2This is a hefty generalization many games sell very well that have nothing to do, "with fly around, shoot things, drive fast cars." It's not all about losing yourself. Some people play just for fun.
I don't play tetris in order to live out my dream of assorting blocks.- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3On the contrary that's exactly what it's about, leaving your normal everyday life and experiencing solving problems from another perspective. It's been that way since they invented chess.
The fact that it has no real life consequences is what makes it fun, its role playing.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3On the contrary that's exactly what it's about, leaving your normal everyday life and experiencing solving problems from another perspective. It's been that way since they invented chess.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4No the problem is that main games sell on the basis of graphics and hype alone with their owners eventually hating them and the fact they were suckered into buying a glitzy piece of junk yet again.
Done well graphics are great but they are rarely done well. Really graphics are like a good marketing campaign, analogous to how ads for so many things include half naked girls who have little or nothing to do with the product in question.- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1That's just marketing and it's the way one sells any and every product there is.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1One of the trends I have hated and still hate is in-game cut scenes. For the longest time In-game cut scenes served simply to remind me that I was playing a game. Why? When an character is walking like ***** scarecrow on crack while the head remains at exactly the same height through out while at the same time I'm supposed to believe this "walking abomination with missile nose cones for boobs" is the super hot love interest of the character I'm playing it tends to do little more than remind me that I'm playing a god damn game instead. Why did games get rid of full motion cutscenes? To improve immersion. HAH!
Your right, graphics do improve immersion, but then again most of the people who play games wouldn't know immersion if it ran them over in a banana-yellow-with-hot-pink-polka-dots Ferrari. I suffered through that for years having to watch horribly animated characters warble around my screen because it was supposed to improve immersion and then when all the crack headed game devs started churning out 5 games a quarter with incredible graphics and lackluster game play I just quit playing games. Now days they can even profit off games that don't work but GOD DAMN would you take a gander at 'dem screen shots, woooooweee! It took half life 2 to arouse a slight interest in it again. I have people who buy these games to thank for the current pit of ***** the game industry is in. Graphics can go ***** itself for all I care.- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Was the reason you weren't satisfied because the graphics weren't good or was it that the computer power available at the time wasn't capable of doing good AI and the Developers couldn't fully express them selves because of their technical limitations.
More Power is always, always a good thing.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Was the reason you weren't satisfied because the graphics weren't good or was it that the computer power available at the time wasn't capable of doing good AI and the Developers couldn't fully express them selves because of their technical limitations.
- maley, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1While the article mentions system life spans, the author fails to mention that Sony has run on 6 years, Nintendo on 5 and Microsoft on 4 so far. I gladly paid $500 for my PS3 and if I get to use it for 6 years (my PS2 has lasted since Christmas of its release) then I will be a very very satisfied customer. Seeing how Nintendo's console is so cheap every 5 years really isn't a problem. However I would have a problem if my system were outdated every 4 like MS did w/ the xbox ahd 360.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If they could make the kind of improvements they made between the Xbox and 360 or the PS2 and PS3 every year, I would buy a new system every two.
- logandurand, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I'm probably missing the whole point of this forum, but...
If you just used a PC, you could upgrade as much as you want, as often as you want. More to the point, you could upgrade components selectively, so if you only wanted more RAM, you could do that. If you wanted a better video card, you could do that. You could even add a liquid cooling system for insane performance.
Instead of buying an entirely new system (and controllers, accessories, etc.) every few years, you could just swap out components on an as-needed basis. You could start out with a $400 budget rig and expand it whenever you wanted to.
There is no "one size fits all" gaming machine. The freedom to have exactly the system you want is taken away from you when you buy a console.
- dslgunstar, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I would be VERY surprised if either Microsoft or Sony rushed to turn over a new generation of hardware. I could see both the 360 and the PS3 offering fantastic visuals and games well past the traditional 5-year life-span.
- randomizer9, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2"How Sony and Microsoft are paying the price for better graphics"
Fixed the title: Nintendo is doing just fine, they have the leading portable system and the Wii will soon overtake the Xbox 360. I own a 360 and am enjoying it, but the PS3 and Wii don't have enough games I'm interested in yet to justify the cost of another console. The DS is also lots of fun, a PSP could be nice...- masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Nintendo witnessed the disastrous sales of the Sega CD and Turbo CD, and then saw it first-hand with their CD-i deal. Ever since they've sort of shied away from using the hottest technology, and right now it's paying off. The problem right now is that some games simply aren't coming to the Wii because it's too weak for games to be easily ported, although the growing market share may be enough for them to invest in a separate Wii title (e.g. Sonic and the Secret Rings vs. the PS3/360 game).
- medeste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0don't you think that the high price of the consoles is not a real issue? i mean, as far as i know, in my country ps1 had the same price at the beginning, the ps2 price was very high too. don't you think we become a little spoiled and want those toys now? maybe the hype on those gaming consoles really did the job... the "next-gen" term - that means nothing at all - coined for the occasion is a perfect example to me.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I bought a PS2 within a month of release. It was £400 with 2 games. A naked PS3 has only recently dropped to that price here in the UK.
- medeste, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0wiki says in Europe the price of ps2 was € 500, here a ps3 is around € 600... there's a difference, but the price was high anyway. i can consider that the DVD was already used and the blu-ray is something new. then things cost more now than some year ago here, so it's hard to consider what happens abroad for me, but for my perspective, they have almost the same (high) price... they usually half the price in 2 maximum 3 years, when the console has a lot of good games, so i find convenient to wait.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3I bought a PS2 within a month of release. It was £400 with 2 games. A naked PS3 has only recently dropped to that price here in the UK.
- JDPoZ, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I'm sick of hearing how games are so damn expensive to make now days as opposed to what they used to be. Yeah, Gears of War cost around $10 million to make... but guess what Final Fantasy VII's budget was... $45 million... plus a $100 million ad campaign by Sony to raise awareness in the US for the title. And that was more than 10 years ago. Here's the REAL problem: Developers are becoming more and more greedy. Everyone's turning into an EA or an Ubisoft. They want bigger profit margins, and they get those buy rushing out ***** like "Transformers: The Game" early with the movie so it can ride on the marketing wave the movie's ads provided and possibly sell a few copies more, rather than delaying the game so that it works properly. These corporate game makers will continue to buy up any small companies that follow the old principle of "spend lots of time and money on something and people will buy it" (see Bioshock... who's creator company was just bought by 2K...) until there's no innovative companies left which leads to bored and frustrated gamers. Then the second video game market crash will occur.
- reyoo30309, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I know this can't be something you overlooked... When people talk about how much more expensive it has been to develop a game they mean on average!
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2In Europe there was no first video game market crash. We were all on C64 with thousands of amateur titles written in BASIC.
The same will happen this time. PC's will survive any crash and a 2nd crash will just revitalise that industry.
I don't think there will truly be a crash though, it will just take longer for worthwhile, non-mainstream, titles to appear on this generation of console.
- ekin09, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Excellent article. Well said sir. I never understood why a majority of gamers (especially the new school gamers) discounted Nintendo. Understand that they (Nintendo) have been in the gaming industry much longer than Sony and Microsoft, and overcame the old console wars with Sega. Nintendo has always recognized the need for affordable gaming while keeping the market fresh and intuitive.
- reyoo30309, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think many gamers lost most of their faith in Nintendo after the gamecube. No Nintendo did not lose money on it but gamers who bought it (like myself) found that new fresh titles were few and far in between.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes but they made money, which means they will still be about no matter what happens. It is MS and Sony who are playing the dangerous game, Nintendo will be around 25 years from now, a disaster from Sony or MS could put them out before then.
- Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, Nintendo is the one playing the dangerous game. Aren't they the ones that threw out the two-handed controller idea and didn't increase their console's power by a phenomenal amount? Big risk = Big win. And they seem to be winning.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2They make a profit per unit sold. That isn't risky. Even consigned to niche status they would have turned a profit, none of the technology is exceptionally expensive. The only question is whether they'd make a moderate or large profit. The X-Box division of MS has yet to turn a profit.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Big risk indeed, but the story isn't over yet. Nintendo may regret their choice in a year or two. They should be sitting on a very large bank roll when they need to make their next generation after the Wii, that will be interesting.
- Shaflugi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Actually, Nintendo is the one playing the dangerous game. Aren't they the ones that threw out the two-handed controller idea and didn't increase their console's power by a phenomenal amount? Big risk = Big win. And they seem to be winning.
- GMorgan, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Yes but they made money, which means they will still be about no matter what happens. It is MS and Sony who are playing the dangerous game, Nintendo will be around 25 years from now, a disaster from Sony or MS could put them out before then.
- reyoo30309, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think many gamers lost most of their faith in Nintendo after the gamecube. No Nintendo did not lose money on it but gamers who bought it (like myself) found that new fresh titles were few and far in between.
- somenutter, on 10/10/2007, -9/+4Josh Valone = full of it
What planet are you on since when did powerfull consoles = bad idea some of the best games ever are out and some are coming to a console near you shall i list them
Call of duty 2-3
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
Crackdown
F.E.A.R.
Fable 2
Fight Night Round 3
Gears of War
Gears of War 2
Grand Theft Auto IV
Halo 3
Halo Wars
Huxley
Indiana Jones 2007
Lego Star Wars II: The Original Trilogy
Mass Effect
The Elder Scrolls Oblivion
Pro Evolution Soccer 6
Star Wars: The Force Unleashed
Turok 2008
Unreal Tournament 3
Virtua Tennis 3
Thats just a few of the big ones ive found, pretty much all of them need the power of next gen consoles to run and without them we could not experience the magic that some of these games offer, how many of you in the list above haven't played at least one of the titles ive mentioned ?
i think what should be said is ea is a blood sucking crappy game producer that is milking kids with money to burn on tosh like Def Jam Icon that i would agree with but consoles dont need to get less powerfull- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Some of those games you mention aren't even out yet.
Remember when Lair, and Warhawk were going to be AAA titles?
And honestly, you seem to have missed the entire point of the article. It's not talking about the quality of the gaming experience, but rather the troubles that creating such over the top hardware have created for the industry.- somenutter, on 10/10/2007, -5/+0I did mention that some of the titles aren't out yet and ive not missed the piont of the article hes trying to say we should have less powerful consoles that are cheaper to sell and would boost the industry but the best tech doesn't come cheap what they should do and what we are seeing happen now is drop the prices.
- gwolf, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Having to go to school is hard and no one always succeeds, but it doesn't mean you aren't better off for taking hard courses instead of basket weaving.
Even failures and mistakes can be great teachers.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2But all of those games could have been done on the xbox with no significant loss in the visual perception of graphical quality, though they might have needed more disks. The new systems essentially add three things graphically. Improved lighting, larger draw distances and/or higher resolution, and better filters for shadows and the like. Its a long list of minor graphical details that have improved and that are certainly very very nice to have. However, you know what you get without them? Halo 2. Wheres the ***** problem?
- somenutter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Pretty much all of the games ive mentioned are impossible to produce as working titles on xbox without completely downgrading the hole game res textures lighting draw distance and they would not look anything like what they do today so i disagree
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1fear could have easily been released on xbox.
- somenutter, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0Pretty much all of the games ive mentioned are impossible to produce as working titles on xbox without completely downgrading the hole game res textures lighting draw distance and they would not look anything like what they do today so i disagree
- grumbel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The problem isn't really more power, its a degree of how much more power. PS3 and XBox360 seem to have overshoot the target quite a bit, missing the the $200-300 mark at which consoles sell well, thus limiting the target audience and in turn the game selection.
- mushoo, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So you're saying that the PC on which I played FEAR since it was a beta counts as a next gen console? Will you give me 600 bucks for it? Next time make a list that doesn't list games that are really old, not released yet, and also available on PC when touting the wonders of next-gen consoles.
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Some of those games you mention aren't even out yet.
- NTolerance, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Blame the gamers. When the PSX was released they decided they wanted movies instead of games.
- dslgunstar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No, they decided they wanted great, original games at relatively quick intervals instead of waiting through 6-month dry-spells just to get another rehash of Nintendo's favorite franchises.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You know I was listening to what you had to say until you singled out Nintendo. Good job at giving away your agenda. By the way, the dry spells have spread out much further since the release of the psx. Dry spells now last for a year to 3 years because games aren't developed in months but in years now. Even then with additional time to develop each game the ratio of bad games to good games has gone up preventing the dry spells from staying the same.
- dslgunstar, on 10/10/2007, -5/+3No, they decided they wanted great, original games at relatively quick intervals instead of waiting through 6-month dry-spells just to get another rehash of Nintendo's favorite franchises.
- masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Graphics contribute to the overall feel, but they don't automatically equal immersion. A game can have graphics so amazing that you'd swear it's pre-rendered, but if the world doesn't feel believable players simply won't be drawn into it. Games like Thief and Gothic are still just as immersive now as they were back in the day, even though their graphics haven't aged well at all (especially Thief's low-res, 16-bit textures). But despite the dated graphics that intangible "magic" is still there.
Once graphics reach a certain level and are able to maintain the suspension of disbelief indefinitely, any further developments are purely eye-candy and do little to improve the already deep immersion the game provides. Look at BioShock, Crysis, UT3, and all these other big games coming out. We're already at that point. Now I'd rather see improvements being made to gameplay and performance rather than this obsession with turning up bloom another notch and adding another hundred polygons to each model.- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0But all of those games could have been done on the xbox with no significant loss in the visual perception of graphical quality, though they might have needed more disks. The new systems essentially add three things graphically. Improved lighting, larger draw distances and/or higher resolution, and better filters for shadows and the like. Its a long list of minor graphical details that have improved that yes, are certainly very very nice to have. However, you know what you get without them? Halo 2. Wheres the ***** problem?
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0grrr this is not the comment i wanted to reply to, bury me. and the and my parent comment
- grumbel, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Speaking about Gothic, sure, the the textures are outdated, there are no shaders and stuff, but what I find very impressive with that game is that it has true 3D terrain, not just a lame heightmap as Oblivion, but real 3D with caves, overhangs and all that stuff.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -2/+0But all of those games could have been done on the xbox with no significant loss in the visual perception of graphical quality, though they might have needed more disks. The new systems essentially add three things graphically. Improved lighting, larger draw distances and/or higher resolution, and better filters for shadows and the like. Its a long list of minor graphical details that have improved that yes, are certainly very very nice to have. However, you know what you get without them? Halo 2. Wheres the ***** problem?
- rowlodge, on 10/10/2007, -6/+1geeze whats wrong with having graphics, wanna go back to the N64?
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1uhm, no, but only cause the games on it were mostly focused on graphics rather than quality games. Would I go back to the playstation level of graphics? If it was a well made game: in a ***** heart beat.
- somenutter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Are you saying new consoles cant produce well made games ?
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2no im saying that they create incentives to make games that have great graphics but otherwise suck ass. Given to choice between a well crafted game on the psx and the same game still well crafted on a xbox 360 but also improved to take advantage of the system hard ware I would go with the Xbox360 version. However there is currently such a huge lack of quality games that all but a few of my friends have given up gaming except to play on rare occasions, myself included. The vacuum is so strong that I would gladly play a game with no better than psx level graphics if it was a quality game. I'd even be willing to swap disks a few dozen times.
- watcht, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1hey man the 64 gave us Zelda:OOT and SSB. Dont be dissing the big N64. Not to mention the ffvii for the ps1 the only game to make people cry, halo hasnt caused me to cry yet.
- wolferz, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1uhm, no, but only cause the games on it were mostly focused on graphics rather than quality games. Would I go back to the playstation level of graphics? If it was a well made game: in a ***** heart beat.
- amrush4th, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1awesome graphics are...awesome. sorry, but the more powerful the system the better the game CAN be (its far from automatic). This happens all the time. Its like when you stop getting new music and just listen to the bands you used you. Your stuck in your age and your opinion slowly means less and less over time because your just not in touch with what is going on today. If you hate hi def games...so be it. all the old school games are free online at this point, so go play them and enjoy yourself.
- DarkSamus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0and manumatic is better than stick shift, right?
- Shanobi, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I could stand staying at the level of graphics from the last generation, with a little extra processing power.
- DarkSamus, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0i say ps2 will always remain the best, the games available for it would take a lifetime to finish, and lots of really good ones too
- rtd85, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2seriously what's with this nostalgia with old games. I don't doubt that 8-bit games can be immersive and amazing, look at the original Mario but they are VIDEO games people. The fact is that video and the quality of that video is just as important and directly influential in developing new modes of storytelling and immersive worlds. They have a symbiotic relationship and should both be given equal respect. It should be taking into consideration that video games can and (imo) should be more than just gorgeous to look, just as they should be more than just amazing stories with little thought of how that story is visually communicated. Instead the evolution of video games should focus on this complete and deep immersion. No right minded person should be arguing against an 8-bit video games ability to be immersive but to argue that a high-definition game with Dolby surround sound doesn't hold more untapped potential for an immersive glorious and over all fun experience is just plain dumb.
- Manachuboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seriously, why do people assume we all want further and further immersion into our games? I dunno about anyone else but I *hate* how gaming has evolved lately. I go into arcades and can't find a bloody thing to play any longer coz it's all 'realistically shoot this' or 'realistically drive that'. Where's the gaming equivalent of anime... yanno, the stuff that obviously isn't real life and doesn't pretend to be but nobody minds?
- masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Those sort of games are on Xbox Live Arcade, I guess. The Arcade gets crazy stuff like Worms and Castle Crashers, as well as very simple games like Pac-Man that would no longer sell very well in standalone packages. The Virtual Console and PlayStation Network also have things like this, but they seem to have a higher proportion of ports and remakes rather than new titles.
For a standalone release, however, developers are largely devoted to giving people far more realism and/or epicness than these downloadable games have. There was even an attempt at a "realistic" Bomberman reimagining just recently, and it bombed (har har) in both sales and gameplay as any older gamer could have predicted.
- masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Those sort of games are on Xbox Live Arcade, I guess. The Arcade gets crazy stuff like Worms and Castle Crashers, as well as very simple games like Pac-Man that would no longer sell very well in standalone packages. The Virtual Console and PlayStation Network also have things like this, but they seem to have a higher proportion of ports and remakes rather than new titles.
- Manachuboy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Seriously, why do people assume we all want further and further immersion into our games? I dunno about anyone else but I *hate* how gaming has evolved lately. I go into arcades and can't find a bloody thing to play any longer coz it's all 'realistically shoot this' or 'realistically drive that'. Where's the gaming equivalent of anime... yanno, the stuff that obviously isn't real life and doesn't pretend to be but nobody minds?
- dheaddy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Blast processing FTW!
- rtd85, on 10/10/2007, -4/+1seriously what's with this nostalgia with old games. I don't doubt that 8-bit games can be immersive and amazing, look at the original Mario but they are VIDEO games people. The fact is that video and the quality of that video is just as important as developing new modes of storytelling and immersive worlds. They have a symbiotic relationship and should both be given equal respect. It should be taking into consideration that video games can and (imo) should be more than just gorgeous to look, just as they should be more than just amazing stories with little thought of how that story is visually communicated. Instead the evolution of video games should focus on this complete and deep immersion. No right minded person should be arguing against an 8-bit video games ability to be immersive but to argue that a high-definition game with Dolby surround sound doesn't hold more untapped potential for an immersive glorious and over all fun experience is just plain dumb.
- TheNeonNinja, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2More games, faster? Honestly, no thanks. I'm having enough trouble keeping up with releases as is.
- watcht, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Trying to slow down technology?! HA!!
- whiteguysamurai, on 10/10/2007, -2/+1The xbox 360 core is only listed as $279, so if there is some reason price is keeping people away, it's only $30 more to get two generations worth of technology.
- Zap2, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2The Core is NOT 2 generations of technolgy....the Core doesn't even have built in memory.....so it can't support Xbox 1 games...the Core is joke.
- lubczyk, on 10/10/2007, -5/+1High development costs? *****, EA's development costs must be close to nothing since they reuse so many assets. How much and long could it possibly have taken to make the Wii version of Tiger Woods PGA Tour 08 for the Wii. It looks just like the PS2 version which looks like PGA 07 version. No online either.
I mean Wii are getting *****.
Sure its innovative, but it won't mean nothing if we keep getting PS2 and PSP ports with a good game every 6 months.
I don't think the Wii can replicate the PS2's success like some say. The PS2 is still selling well and it came out 7 years ago when the Video Game market was different.
I love my Wii, but it looks like I'll be stuck Mario and Zelda for tis entirety of its lifespan. I don't want to play on-rails arcade games from the nineties. I don't want to play Resident Evil 4 again. I don't want to PSP First Person Shooters on my HDTV.- masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're so right. My nephew rented Need for Speed Carbon (PS2) the week before Christmas and I was amazed at how good the graphics were for a PS2 title--motion blur, lens flares, reflections, the works. The next week he got Need for Speed Underground II (also PS2) as a Christmas present... while both of us expected it to have less coolness than Carbon, it looked and played virtually identically despite being the older game! Carbon was not a bad game in and of itself (police chases are great fun!) but from what I've seen the series as a whole is starting to take the Madden route. I can't see spending the cost of a new game all over again just to swap drifting with night racing, or whatever they come up with next for the series.
With the Wii being so much less powerful these nigh-identical updates are going to become even more common, with EA of course being the worst offenders.- lubczyk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Yeah, but here's the ***** up part:
The Wii looks like the PS2 version only the PS2 version has online!!!!
That's ***** up. But the casual Wii owner will shallow it all, because the average Wii casual gamer demands nothing more than Pac-Man.
*****, Atari could re release the original Black and White Pong in 8-Bit and 480P :( and they'd sell millions.
I mean ***** licensed ***** like Spiderman 3 and Transformers sell like hotcakes along with Mario and Wii Play *****.
- lubczyk, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0Yeah, but here's the ***** up part:
- masterthiefster, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1You're so right. My nephew rented Need for Speed Carbon (PS2) the week before Christmas and I was amazed at how good the graphics were for a PS2 title--motion blur, lens flares, reflections, the works. The next week he got Need for Speed Underground II (also PS2) as a Christmas present... while both of us expected it to have less coolness than Carbon, it looked and played virtually identically despite being the older game! Carbon was not a bad game in and of itself (police chases are great fun!) but from what I've seen the series as a whole is starting to take the Madden route. I can't see spending the cost of a new game all over again just to swap drifting with night racing, or whatever they come up with next for the series.
- Schmapdi, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0It's a good article - and very true. Too many developers are spending too much time improving lens flares and making jigglier boobs than working on decent gameplay or innovation. Not to mention the cost of getting started squeezes out the little developers - who are a big source not only of innovation but a breeding ground for new talent.
Plus - its always a good thing when developers get the time to work on hardware for a few years. Look at some of the last games on the original 8 bit Gameboy - after 10+ years in existence some of the stuff they were able to pull off were certified as miracles by the Catholic church IIRC.
And 60 bucks for a game? Screw that. I'd rather play 10 great looking games than 8 Amazing looking games. - HumanRecall, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1FYI somebody please send Josh Valone a reminder to stop standing in front of screen doors while people throw ***** at him......
Did anyone take a look at that pizza face mug. - conkers209, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1In some ways I have to agree with lubczyk, why? Because yes, the Wii is getting alot of PS2 ports and gamecube games with Wii controls. But the thing that makes the Wii different with the 360 and PS3 is that making games on the Wii is cheaper. Sure I'm getting sick of seeing games being ported to the Wii, like Rock Star Games Table Tennis and Bully (also coming to 360) but you also have games like Manhunt 2 coming to Wii, PS2 and PSP. What you are getting with the Wii is a PS2 with better graphics and a different way to play games. People are still buying and playing PS2 games, so I feel that the mass market could care less about high def games and just play games to have fun. Look at the game Lair for PS3, sure the game looks pretty, but IGN gave the game a 4.9, why? Because the gameplay sucks, don't get me wrong, I love factor 5, I've played their games on the Gamecube but the thing everyone has to remember is that these are games to be played, not to sit and watch.
Now I'm not a game designer or design game consoles but is there a reason why not to use the same architectures as the last gen systems were, like the Gamecube to Wii. What would have happened if the PS3 used the same architectures as the PS2? would there be better games on the PS3? Or does it not matter how similar the architectures are between each system that it does take a few years to know the ins and outs of each system? - phazon88, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Great article and I basically agree with it. Nuff said.
- bCabulon, on 10/10/2007, -3/+0I'm very happy with my PS3. My friends with 360s seem to be happy with their systems. The article misses that the higher powered systems don't just have $60 huge budget games to offer. Some of the most enjoyable titles are the downloadables. I'm having a blast with Lemmings for the PS3 and it only cost $5. It could have been done for a much less powerful machine. However, I like that I'll be able to play amazing looking games like Heavenly sword as well. The price of the new consoles is no worse than that of the NES when you adjust for inflation. Why should I want a less capable machine?
- fognozzle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0The NES was $200, and came with a game... if you adjust for inflation it might be $350-$400, still $200 shy of the 80GB PS3 (the one that comes with a game).
-
Show 51 - 57 of 57 discussions
