Next Gen Consoles

[BicycleOfDeath]

Besides

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What is the reason to purchase a Next Gen console that will have the same games, same titles... for having to purchase $300+ to play when you can keep your XBOX/PS2/GC/DC/Etc... and get the same thing without 7.1 surround and have everything emit it's own realtime shadow?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

To allow companies to get fatter and richer like nice, succulent farm piggies.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

You can say the same thing about gaming in general. Why upgrade a PC just to play a new title?

Having a $300 upgrade every 4-5 years is a bargain. New technology offers new possibilities. If anyone is to blame for the lack of innovation it's probably the consumer since they buy more of the same in droves.

[BicycleOfDeath]

This thread is going to do me good. I want to buy a next gen out of habbit, but I see no real reason to other than that.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

This thread is going to do me good. I want to buy a next gen out of habbit, but I see no real reason to other than that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wouldnt buy one just because. I normally buy after some games I want have appeared. My wife being a much more "rabid" gamer and early adopter than I was previously , thats changed a bit. But since she brought me a Pokemon DS(special thing you can only get from Pokeworld in Japan ) 95% of everything played on it has been GBA stuff anyway.

 

The big money is going to be on whether or not we should buy a second HDTV

[metadigital]

Besides

[Plano Skywalker]

I have to admit that voice acting and graphics help create a really immersive experience. It is not a substitute for what hard core gamers are looking for in an RPG but it really does help if everything else is there.

 

The fact that Oblivion is coming out with next-gen graphics and voice acting and (presumably) KOTOR 3 will be next gen along with 2 RPGs from Mistwalker, etc I think clinches the deal for me.

 

I also like the idea of the Nintendo Revolution and being able to download any game ever produced by them on any platform....this will help me catch up with the JRPGs like Final Fantasy.

[ShadowPaladin V1.0]

I want a revolution so I can fill in the rest of the fire emblem series. It's only about the size of a sandwhich so it's good for portability too.

[metadigital]

... I've been a console gamer since age 1986 ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must be well versed in the dark arts of necromancy ...

[Darth Flatus]

Ask yourself why buy new games at all?

[Musopticon?]

What do they offer? Realistic boo...erh, I mean more immersive gaming enviroments through more powerful processors and features.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

What do they offer? Realistic boo...erh, I mean more immersive gaming enviroments through more powerful processors and features.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Purdy graffix'n'speshul effeks.

[Musopticon?]

Yeah, that's a good way to put it too.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I feel that all this talk of realism and immersiveness is sand thrown into my eyes. I look around and I feel we still have game design that barely changed since the '80s. What good have advanced physics engines brought? I can see my racing car be trashed realistically or see it give a very detailed set of flips in the air. I can see game characters be thrown into the air or fall in a vast amount of human-like poses. And I still have to go from point A to B, or play with limiting rules because the designers can't or won't envision that I would like to play a in a different way, that I'd like the game to adapt to me rather than the reverse.

 

For a moment yesterday I was considering the idea of roleplaying applied to a firstperson perspective, and applying the concept of action-consequence into the very physics of the gameworld. Physics allowing me to break down doors, climb walls, barricade myself inside a room. Bring down walls, collapse buildings, go to the extent of what some Ultima games allowed to in terms of detail when it came to environment interaction. And not just on a constricting level-based environment but an entire gameworld just developed around the concept that you can influence and interact with nearly everything.

 

 

But wait... Oh? What's that? You're developing another Final Fantasy? Gee, I guess that'll do just fine instead...

 

 

 

 

Idiots.

[BicycleOfDeath]

... I've been a console gamer since age 1986 ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You must be well versed in the dark arts of necromancy ...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Wizards & Warriors, Immortal.. you know, a lot of old games had Necromancer-esque bad guys.

[Musopticon?]

Role-Player, great post.

 

I guess I still hope for X-Com-games with modern graphics and physics. Using the more destructive kind of weaponry would be a hoot.

[metadigital]

I feel that all this talk of realism and immersiveness is sand thrown into my eyes. I look around and I feel we still have game design that barely changed since the '80s. What good have advanced physics engines brought? I can see my racing car be trashed realistically or see it give a very detailed set of flips in the air. I can see game characters be thrown into the air or fall in a vast amount of human-like poses. And I still have to go from point A to B, or play with limiting rules because the designers can't or won't envision that I would like to play a in a different way, that I'd like the game to adapt to me rather than the reverse.

 

For a moment yesterday I was considering the idea of roleplaying applied to a firstperson perspective, and applying the concept of action-consequence into the very physics of the gameworld. Physics allowing me to break down doors, climb walls, barricade myself inside a room. Bring down walls, collapse buildings, go to the extent of what some Ultima games allowed to in terms of detail when it came to environment interaction. And not just on a constricting level-based environment but an entire gameworld just developed around the concept that you can influence and interact with nearly everything.

 

 

But wait... Oh? What's that? You're developing another Final Fantasy? Gee, I guess that'll do just fine instead...

 

Idiots.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree with your sentiments, but you have to consider that we aren't close to a de-/con-structable game environment such as what you envisage, not by a long chalk. We are getting close to the destructive part, with real physics, and the parallel development of real HDR lighting, to make perceptions similar ingame and IRL, but there needs to be another development path -- which is what I think we're all scating around here -- of a political engine.

 

NPC and PC interaction needs to be taken along to the next level. Morrowind as made a half step in the right direction (and a couple fo sideways shuffles, too), but we need a visionary to come along and do for the political dynamics of an RPG what Doom did for graphics (i.e. spawning a whole graphics chip industry): can you imagine a seperate chip for organisational (groups) and psychological (individual NPCs') behaviour?

 

It would probably need to be a massively parallel processor, like the proposed quantum computers, able to solve analogue (as opposed to digital) problems instantaneously; the equivalent of a multi-teraflops digital processor ...

 

 

... In the meantime we just have to keep feeding the conveyor belt hoping that the next step is nearly the last until we get to the promised land ...

[Diogo Ribeiro]

I agree we're not close of seeing that kind of gameworld developed, at least I'm not aware of any shifts in the industry that would allow it to become a reality in the (very) near future.

 

The problem is, it's a relatively young medium, with an industry that's still trying to reap the benefits of the advancements which are easier to develop and captivate gamers - graphics. I believe both gamers and companies are to blame for the redundant nature of most games, which tends to sweep inovation or new forms of gameplay under the rug. Sure, there's always a level of success or failure that comes attached to every new game released, but how many times do we see game using already tried and true gameplay methods being incredibly successful? This seems to happen primarily because of advanced graphical technology, though I wouldn't discount that its also appealing because it's reaching new generations of gamers... Which in turn just seems to help stagnate things again and form a vicious cycle.

[Plano Skywalker]

I agree with more dynamism in games....for instance, even in Morrowind your first Mage Guild quest is always the same, your second Mage Guild quest is always the same, etc. Add voice acting to this, and the chances of them making it more dynamic are actually less.

 

HOWEVER, at some point, they will have the ability to have dynamic voice acting. I mean on-the-fly artificial voice that sounds just like Orson Welles, Vincent Price, or whomever you are talking about. When they have a $300 system that can do that, we may see this kind of dynamism. But not until.

[metadigital]

I agree we're not close of seeing that kind of gameworld developed, at least I'm not aware of any shifts in the industry that would allow it to become a reality in the (very) near future.

 

The problem is, it's a relatively young medium, with an industry that's still trying to reap the benefits of the advancements which are easier to develop and captivate gamers - graphics. I believe both gamers and companies are to blame for the redundant nature of most games, which tends to sweep inovation or new forms of gameplay under the rug. Sure, there's always a level of success or failure that comes attached to every new game released, but how many times do we see game using already tried and true gameplay methods being incredibly successful? This seems to happen primarily because of advanced graphical technology, though I wouldn't discount that its also appealing because it's reaching new generations of gamers... Which in turn just seems to help stagnate things again and form a vicious cycle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And, look at the inspiration for the industry: Hollywood. The current trend -- because budgets are now in the hundreds of millions -- is to try to reduce the probability of failure at the box office, to regain the invested capital and keep the system paying for itself and onto the next cycle. And this leads to Police Academy 5 and Termination 3 (not a bad fim, per se, but when you compare it to the Terminator, there is no comparison).

 

Innovation, by its very nature, is risky. Therefore the more expensive the development cycle, the less risk will be implemented. This is also to do with big companies swallowing little companies, trying to exercise economies of scale -- which, I feel, the jury is still out on for creative endeavours. Beethoven worked alone. Doom was a freeware labour of love from id Software. Waterworld cost US$200M.

[mkreku]

One fact about the PS3 that gets my imagination going is that it comes with a 7 player support right out of the box! Imagine having your friends (who, incidentally also own PS3's) come over and bring their controllers with them, and you load up NHL 2008, and you're all able to play on the same team (either 6 on the ice, or 7, if you want to have rotation). Home team side on one 1080p TV and the Away team side on another.. Ok, so maybe it isn't innovation, but DAMN that would be awesome.

 

Another genre where (up to) 7 controllers would be awesome is in racing games..

[EnderAndrew]

One fact about the PS3 that gets my imagination going is that it comes with a 7 player support right out of the box! Imagine having your friends (who, incidentally also own PS3's) come over and bring their controllers with them, and you load up NHL 2008, and you're all able to play on the same team (either 6 on the ice, or 7, if you want to have rotation). Home team side on one 1080p TV and the Away team side on another.. Ok, so maybe it isn't innovation, but DAMN that would be awesome.

 

Another genre where (up to) 7 controllers would be awesome is in racing games..

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Exactly. The XBox 360 also is ushering in the new version of XBox Live with a free Silver version of Live. You can also purchase micro-content for games, brag up your gamer profile, and perhaps do video chat via Live as well inbetween rounds with the web cam. The new version of Live will also feature a spectator mode where you don't have to compete, but will be able to watch overs in Live games.

 

The Revolution supposedly will have a revolutionary new controller that will change how we play games, and offer downloads of past Nintendo titles.

 

The PS3 will also be my high-def DVD player. Apparently my $250 uber-progressive scan DVD player isn't nice enough. Honestly, all it does is upscale. No DVD player can produce a true 720p, 1080i, or 1080p image natively.

 

Will Sony utilize the HDD more? Will online features be more prevalent in next generation titles? Will HD pictures and surround sound be standard on all PS3 and 360 titles?

 

Yes.

 

I love my PC. But how many PC titles were shown at E3 that impressed anyone? Spore? Civ IV? Is that it?

 

Now watch the video for Killzone 2 and Gears of War.

 

Honestly tell me which is more impressive. I'm not a FPS fan, but the console titles are looking more impressive right now.

[Diogo Ribeiro]

One fact about the PS3 that gets my imagination going is that it comes with a 7 player support right out of the box!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

One thing I like about a feature like 7 player support is the idea of creating a game where all these players have to advance trough a gameworld by helping each other out. Perhaps like Project Eden, but better. Or something along the lines of an adventure game. Possibly with a "solve the murder" theme, where six of the players are innocent but one of them is the culprit, and players can either try to solve it, lay false clues, or even join up with the murderer. Essentially, a single or multiplayer team-based effort but larger in scope than usually done that actually is designed with multiple, simultaneous players in mind, but that it would not fall into the traditional elements of firstperson shooters or massively online RPGs.

 

 

One thing I dislike about a feature like 7 player support is the idea that it'll be wasted on sports games. Though I suspect it might be good for sports games enthusiasts.

 

 

Now watch the video for Killzone 2 and Gears of War.

 

Honestly tell me which is more impressive.  I'm not a FPS fan, but the console titles are looking more impressive right now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Other than footage and a suggestion of what the games will be like, is there anything about these games that's impressive beyond a visual level?

[Azarkon]

True revolutions in a industry often take you by surprise. If you could've seen it coming, it wouldn't be revolution, merely evolution, or possibly "devolution".

 

But a revolution is not needed for innovation to show. A revolution is simply a innovation that has captured the imagination of the devouring masses - that has proven itself a commercial boombox. The rest of the innovations are there, below the surface of the mass-produced "pop" games, usually coming from less-known developers, or at least the less-known titles of better known developers. They're almost never from the industrial giants - but that's to be expected, because industrial giants are, as they say, trapped by their own success.

 

I could provide you with a list of titles that I consider innovative as of late, but that, I think, is a stillbirth enterprise. For innovation is not exactly easy to judge objectively unless you've played every game in every genre on every platform, and have the same criteria for measuring innovation in games. Each of us, I presume, have different experiences with when and how we approached gaming, as well as to what games we've played. What one might consider innovation, then, another might consider contrived, and I do not see the point of getting into such an argument.

 

So I'll just say this: if you limit yourself to commercial, media-hyped titles from successful, trusted companies, the gaming industry will undoubtedly prove much more stagnant than it really is. That's not to say that commercially successful companies will never innovate (take Spore, for instance, from EA), but it is to say that they are less willing to innovate, given that thousands of people's jobs are at stake not to mention many times more shareholders. The more weight one bears on one's back, the less risk prone one tend to be - that's not a fault of the gaming industry, it's human nature.

 

Innovation is the stuff of explorers, and so only through exploration can you discover it. I'll leave it at that.

[EnderAndrew]

Other than footage and a suggestion of what the games will be like, is there anything about these games that's impressive beyond a visual level?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The speed of gameplay.

The immersion factor of the environment.

The AI.

The detailed level design.

How alive and chaotic the action is all round you.

 

Games today approach great graphics. RE4, Half Life 2, Doom 3, and Splinter Cell anyone?

 

But they have tight, controlled environments with little going on in them. Killzone and Gears of War really made me feel like I was being dropped into a true situation of mass anarchy and destruction.