This upcoming gen - most pointless gen ever?

Honestly, the PS3 and 360 are doing nothing to improve the experience of this generation, outside of improving the visuals and making systems more powerful.

The early gen created gaming.

NES/SMS revived it, expanded it.

Genesis/SNES expanded it even more.

Saturn/PSX/N64 brought 3D, expanded it.

DC/PS2/XB/GC vastly improved the 3D.

This gen, I wouldn't say vastly improved it, and the only reason I would say it expanded the industry is because of the Revolution.

If these visuals I've seen are the best that these systems can be done, the systems have no reason to exist. Sony and MS would do better to just work on bringing out the best in the PS2 and Xbox instead of demanding $400/$500 for new visuals and better hardware - not a new gaming experience.

They make systems & games to suit the market. The market is people blindly buying whatever EA Sports have to offer this year. From someone like EA there will never be any innovation, the innovation came from companies who can now not afford to produce games.

:(

As a general rule, people don't like innovation.  Innovation is different, an unknown, a scary thing that changes the status quo.


MS and Sony recognize that and are giving the market more of the same. 

Nintendo has decided to carve out a niche for itself instead of competing with MS and Sony on their turf (which the circumstances surrounding the GC have shown just isn't going to work).  Thus, Nintendo is looking to capture the market of people who aren't willing to spend >$300 on a game system and who are willing to try something new-- the early adopters, if you will.

I think it's a good strategy.  A gamble, to be sure, but since when is any economic decision not a gamble?  I admit that I hope this one pays off for Nintendo.  I'll be waiting for the Revolution.

Does this generation even bring anything new to the gameplay table? All the developers seem to be doing for the next-gen games is adding crappy details which add little to the game at all. Player sweat, film grain, more visible sports fans in the sidelines, extra bullet holes in armor, extra blinky armor, pointless motion blur, and a whole list of other crap that's used to cover up the lack of new content. Get your new Madden, folks! Now with 380% more realistic grass stains on jerseys and an updated roster!

This gen brings HD into it. That's all.

Of course this gen also brings the Rvolution. Possibly the NR will be something innovative and succesful. Only time will tell...

And when the PS2 and other current gen systems came out they looked about the same as last gen systems. Especially in the PS2's case.

Do you know why? Because they were NEW. Game makers had no fucking clue how to optimize thier games and push the console to its limits.

The best looking and performing games come out at the end of a consoles life. Compare games on the PS2 NOW and soon to come out to the PS2 games of the past. You will see they look and perform much better.

The games you are getting now are already pushing the current gen consles to thier limits. You can sometimes see this for yourself when the consoles begin to lag or slowdown like a pc would.

You cant just look at demos and games that release with a next gen console to gauge it's performance. Now, when the PS3, Xbox 360, and Revolution have been out for awile or are at the end of thier life THEN you can make the decision if they were worth it or not.

If you were to judge on games that first come out with a console you would of said the same god damn thing about the PS2 when the PSX was ended. Oh noes it looks just like the Playstation!!

This gen is also just improving 3D as well - improved draw distances and detail.
I hope for more realistic physics at the end of this gen or next gen.

The PS2 and XBox generation brought netplay, media player capabilites, and better graphics to the table when it came out. Outside of the Revolution, there's not much innovation at all.

lol @ revolution. please.

>>11
Please what?

seems like this gen will bring intergration
the gaming box will be an "all in one" device, more so than in the past (internet, rip, Store, Shop, Play, Listen, Whatch)

Gaming Media Center

>>1
And the beauty of it all is that people will buy them up and you're not gonna hear about anything in gaming but these new consoles you despise so much.

The thought that you'll be suffering due to my pleasure is beautiful to me.

1. The Hell? You're saying that the gaming industry should not be about gaming? Christ people, why are you so excited about the idea of gaming being overshadowed by everything else?

2. Good point. After all, why would I want to have fun when I can watch every little detail of Snake's mullet?

I can watch every little detail of Snake's mullet?

Yeah, but I enjoy watching Snake's mullet. It's so... manly.

But you know what?

I don't need a game station to watch his mullet.

>>8
When I saw what the Dreamcast (the first of the then next-gen) was pushing with its early games, compared to the Saturn, PS1 and N64, I could tell there was a real improvement. The same goes for the Xbox and GC when they got their later releases. The PS2 didn't seem as much of an improvement early on, but I guess that is due to the architecture of the machine.

Only Nintendo seem to be doing something different thing gen (remains to be seen though), Sony and Microsoft are seemingly pushing the same shit with added clarity.

The new systems are expensive to develop for (higher resolution textures and models don’t come free), and Microsoft is taking a larger cut from every game sold. So, an XBox 360 title will have to sell even more copies in order to recover its costs. Publishers are notoriously scared of taking risks, and will be even less likely to publish something unproven! So, we can expect to see a lot more sequels and copycats, and fewer innovative game concepts on the.

The only saving grace is downloadable content. Already some people have said the most fun game for the 360 is "Geometry Wars", an Xbox Live Arcade download. That’s where the real innovation will happen!

If you check upcoming games for the Xbox360, and some of the games that are in development for the PS3, you'll notice that a large majority of them are sequels.

More of the same crap, but wait, this time we have a twist.  They shot it through the HD blender, and then sold it to you.

I don't mind that they're sequels, it's just that they're FANBOY sequels.  Slap the name "MetalGear" on any FPS and it's gonna sell, no matter how shitty it is.  Same goes for RPG's.  Put the phrase "Final Fantasy" on it and you're gonna sell a lot of copies.  It doesn't matter how shitty it is, people will still buy it.  Then they'll rant about it on the internet in a few months, about how crappy it is, yet they can't put it down.

They're becoming high-end media center PC's.  Within a year or two, someone will have made emulators for the Xbox360 and the PS3.  I much rather save my money and buy a Nintendo Revo and all of it's games.

I'm no Nintendo fanboy, but I do believe that's where the next leader in console games will be.  Nintendo.  Why?  It'll be easier to develop for them, and developers won't be taking as much of a risk as with the other two systems.  They won't end up wasting millions of dollars on high-end graphics only to discover that their game is a flop.

Essentially, if all you want one of these systems for is for video games(imagine that), then the only REAL upgrade here is a higher resolution and HD.  Which, btw, mean you'll end up wasting more money on a better TV.  I could do without the rest of the crap.  I want to watch movies?  DVD player or my computer.  Music?  Digital music player or my computer.

>>21
yeah, i'll probably get the nintendo one too. Nintendo are the only ones that actually have the guts to do something new this gen. Sony and MS just keep promising better graphics. Graphics are fleeting, Gameplay is forever!

Only jaded videogame nerds who suddenly realize they've wasted their entire lives with videogames would hate the current generation of consoles/videogames.

>>23
hey read this
Gameplay is forever!Gameplay is forever!Gameplay is forever!
Gameplay is forever!Gameplay is forever!Gameplay is forever!

movies and graphics can only be seen aka used a few times before its OLD

and here i wonder why they care about the graphics, oh they think the market does
the market doesn't know shit, i thought THEY(micro,sony) knew this, being such clever corporations having years of experience in the "undustry" chilling up to their overpaid analysts like
"yo what do they want dawg i need to make this system dawg"
and the guys like "GRAPHICS! reemember the TURBOGRAFIX16?!(poster note: misspelled on purpose) It was the best system ever, thats what people want, super awesome graphics"

Nintendo howver MADE gaming as you all and they all know it. If the market has no fucking idea what videogames are or what they REALLY want out of them, who does? Nintendo, that's who, because how the fuck would they have made it before while continuing work on progressing videogaming today? Problem is people think its about this gaudy form of extremity overused and mistakenly glorified as manliness. People this shitty have not a clue what even that is but there are people who get money SOLELY DEPENDING

on the fact that they do not know. The shittyness and missplaced values of our society have now come into the matter and for some reason it is attempted to be embraced and emulated, they have poisoned gaming by partaking and demanding things on a level "they can appreciate" you know, stuff about not so refined ideas, querying gameplay mechanics from a developer who has no creative passion for the garbage of the design.

Even though Nintendo claims it is "revolutionary", I find it odd it won't support Bluray or HD.

I'm tired of those goddamn scan lines.

>>13
I don't want my goddamn game console to be a "media center".  I don't want to buy t-shirts with it, get ads on it, buy credit cards, listen to music, any of that bullshit.  You know what?  I don't even want it to connect to the internet, because online multiplayer is balls.

I want to put in a game disc and then play the game, and that's fucking it.

>>26
SHUT THE FUCK UP

i really think that the technology is at a point where game makers aren't held back by what a system can't do. and this tech upgrade as far as i can tell really only benefits games trying to look more photorealistic. a stylized game like wind waker or viewtiful joe would probably never look any better no mater how much more powerful game systems become.

To open up new possibilities, we'll have to look somewhere other than how many CPU cycles or how much RAM crunching you can fit in. we've been doing that for 20 years, about time for a change of approach.

>>28
lol, fanboy

>>27

I love you.

>>26
right, because we all know reshaping a controller from the ground up isn't innovative at all amirite?

and really, HD only has appeal to the "jonses" and those that try to keep up with them.

A more conservitave consumer will wait till he has plenty of HD signals to go INTO the HDTV, rather than just picking one up and waiting for something that will actually USE HD preformance.

>>1
Better graphics, better hardware, the hardware is what makes the consoles go around and increases the possibilities for game development. Pretty much you just listed consoles which improved the hardware little by little. Just saying that they "improved the gaming" is shortsighted. They had better hardware which made the possibilities come true. Pretty much we are at the point in which the only true innovation that can come is holographic gaming, though that is a long way from here.

>>32
Right, because focusing heavily on the controller will allow for truly revolutionary game play, like the VR helmet and Nintendo's outstanding VB.

Nintendo is also revolutionary enough to realize it should FINALLY use standard media, unlike the poor Dreamcast which alienated some users who held out and opt'd for the PS2's DVD support. And hey, let's not forget PS2's wise decision which, at that time, allowed the distribution of relatively cheap DVD players.
However, Revolution deemed it unnecessary for it to include Bluray support because, clearly, 100 GB on a relatively cheap plastic disc isn't "revolutionary" enough.
Lowest-end system of the triumverates? Oh, big whoop, since hardware isn't much of a deal anymore.
Because clearly, PS2 had no problems dealing with three-way releases.
Oh, look at this, I'm not sure why Revolutionary is starting to smell like the fun machine, but hey, even though Nintendo isn't losing out on tons of money selling the hardware like MS and Sony, we know they're not producing a cheaper machine to save money but because they're always thinking what's best for their fans. This is yet another reason why Nintendo has chosen to not support Bluray - it would be too capital-extensive for them to pr.... it would be too expensive for their fans to purchase. Obviously, the cartridge was and is always superior to CDs for and only the load times. Crippled graphics? Big whoop!

Of course, NTSC was deemed appropriate for the revolution, and Revolution decided it wouldn't be innovative to introduce HD support, even though those cumbersome scanlines have been around for half a century. So what if PS2 allowed for the mass diffusion of DVD players? HD is just a fad for the rich, high-end "Joneses" because technology will never get chaper and hey, no one wants an upgrade to something that has been working. If it does its job, no need to fix it.

Nintendo fans of the world, unite!












... so yeah. Just following Nintendo's "philosophy"  and policy on hardware and gaming, I'm a bit leery on the whole "Revolution" thing. Sure, it's indeed a bold move to introduce a new controller, but as it is something almost completely different, it's difficult to judge it now. On the other hand, Nintendo is following the trend of the N64, as it is the cheapest of the three systems of the new generation. At the time of the N64, its hardware was cheaper because the tech for CDs were expensive.
It is odd that it won't support HD and Bluray, because with its support, it would definitely help those markets. It definitely helped Sony's PS2, and to the joy of consumers, provided them with relatively cheap DVD players, which at the time, DVD tech was expensive as well. Following that trend, PS3 may provide the same boost for Bluray.
But, I must admit, though the DS has its shortcomings, I definitely prefer it over the PSP. Somehow, it looks more childish than the original Gameboy, and I don't even use the bottom screen that much, but rather that than a lower-end PS2 that dies in 4 hours [max].

While PS3 has my highest hopes and Revolution a bit behind and cautious... fuck the Xbox. It's just a goddamn computer with absolutely nothing innovative about it. It's providing the same standards as the other two, save for Revolution's lack of HD. So long as games aren't pushing the systems to their max, Nintendo may not have to worry about being the lower-end system. Xbox 360 is bringing out [most] standards that everyone expected, but that's it.

In all honesty... my childhood bias hopes Nintendo doesn't die despite its clear philosophy, but Microsoft is an even greater and bigger Babylon.

>>29
I think this is bullshit.  Developers are still held back by technical limitations, but they're at a point where the time and effort needed to do the bigger stuff is just as big an obsctacle as the tech is.

Those of you who say games can't really benefit from the bigger power aren't thinking big.  Can you have a free-roaming game like GTA and go into every single building into an entire city, and knock every single object off the shelves yet?  Can you have every single person in that city be unique looking? 

I'm not saying GTA is the pinnacle of gaming or anything, i'm just using it because free roaming games take up alot of processing power traditionally.  Another example is can you have a game where every building and thing in the level is destroyable/deformable terrain?  What about realtime enemy mutilation, i.e. slice someone with a lightsaber and they get divided exactly where you sliced?  Of course not.  You probably couldn't even do that shit with the PS3.

Of course, games that huge and detailed would take EVEN MORE time and cost even MORE to make, in addition to being extremely taxing even on the most modern systems.

We're not at a tech threshhold, we're at a cost and time threshhold.

>>21
>Within a year or two, someone will have made emulators for the Xbox360 and the PS3.

Like with the Xbox, PS2 and Gamecube, right?

Oh wait you're a moron.

>>36
There happens to be emulators for the Xbox, PS2, and Gamecube, they just happen to not be complete or usable in any way.  :P

>>34
Oh noes scanlines
Stop playing videogames and go watch movies if you don't like them. 

>>16
Yes.

>>35
how much of what you talked about is mostly graphical?

okay, maybe there are some things that can't quite be done yet, but the examples you state are to nitpick detail.

even so my statement could stand a little rephrasing.

"tech has come to the point where what systems can't do is no longer the main limit." that is to say, the limits of the tech are giving way, and it's near if not at, a point where it's becoming impractacal to use the system to it's full power.

look at xbox 360, sweating players, real jersy textures, neat, but the camera has to be zoomed in for you to even see those details. there's going to be a turning point, and i think soon.

maybe these games with impressive graphical effects will start getting washed out with the advent of small cheap downloadable games on consoles, maybe developers will stop trying to squeeze out more detail as some players start to complain about time spent on sperficial effects that could have put in more levels.

how long on average, does the same buisness model work for a company before change is needed?

you can't just look at things as they are now and assume things will continue on the current path, you could have done that about 10 years ago and come out with the prediction that today sega would have for a couple years had the edge over nintendo, considering how much better genesis did than thier previous system.

or as a possibly better example, that mentality would give you predictions like: so, growing at this rate, this puppy will in a matter of years grow in size until it's wagging tail wipes out new york.

>>40
The sad thing is, you're not going to see a business model change:  you're going to see a crash.  I don't think cheap downloadable games is the way to go, because, well... Other than one or two exceptions, cheap downloadable games fucking suck.  2d sidescrollers are still fun once in a while, but their time as industry king is over, just like you're never going to see a Space Invader ripoff boom again.

Fact is, we're reaching probably a great, yet terrifying time for the industry, a time where graphical excellence isn't the dirving factor, because it's more or less everywhere.  Where on a plateau, so everyone's on a level playing field.  This is scary for those fags in the industry who can't be bothered making a game that does anything but look good.  Games that have no original quirks, fun gameplay mechanics or personality will fail, companies will go under, and good riddance.  Games like F.E.A.R. and Black will begin to dissapear.

ALL hail the revolution!

I didn't like the last gen (ps2/gcn/xbox). Those systems had like no games I enjoyed. I should've stuck with dreamcast. Now that I think of it, I should've gotten an xbox for that panzer dragon game and JSRF and maybe jade empire and phantom dust, but I could never see buying an xbox for some reasons.

impressive graphics and tech stats do not necessarily make for a good game or a fun and worthwhile gaming experience. just because you can play online, the game is better? just because it is in HD, the game is better? just because you can walk around every building, the game is better? hardly. some of the most fun, innovative, and challenging games ever created are STILL the old arcade games, the Space Invaders, the Missle Command, the Tetris, the original Donkey Kong and Mario Brothers. we are still playing and worshipping these games 20, even 30 years after they were released. in 30 years, are we still going to be playing Call of Duty and Ghost Recon and Madden/NBA/World Cup/whatever 2006? i doubt it.

so why are those first explorations into gaming so lasting? are we only hanging onto them because of nostalgia? or is there something more to them that we are missing in our games today? i really don't know the answers to these questions. but i'm willing to bet that it has something to do with the fact that when these games were created, a 'status quo' of gameplay had not yet been established. developers had no idea what they were doing - interacting with a screen had never been done like this before, and developers were grasping in the dark for ways of representing things like movement and progress. genres had not yet been established. there was no such thing as a FPS, and if you wanted to create one, you had to think up how to do it by yourself, rather than relying on an industry standard. compare this to how games are made today: we already know (or we think we know) how a FPS should work, so when someone wants to make one, they use an established 'template' of visuals, interaction, movement, etc. the focus has shifted dramatically.

i personally would like to see a rethinking of what it means to interact with a game. i would like to see more games like Killer7, that throw the old standards out the window to create something entirely new, fresh, and unique. is this even possible? will it ever happen? probably not. but if there IS a chance i believe that it lies with Nintendo and the Revolution. they're at least TRYING to rethink things.

>>some of the most fun, innovative, and challenging games ever created are STILL the old arcade games, the Space Invaders, the Missle Command, the Tetris, the original Donkey Kong and Mario Brothers

I haven't touched a single one of those in 20 years.

>>we are still playing and worshipping these games 20, even 30 years after they were released

People who jism all over their childhood maybe.  Those of us that don't have our vision obscured by lenses of a light red variety try and play these ancient games and realize alot of the advances have been for the better. 

>>i would like to see more games like Killer7, that throw the old standards out the window to create something entirely new, fresh, and unique.

Case in point:  Killer 7 was unique and looked great... it was a shitty game.  No one sane liked the gameplay, but by god it was wacky provided you could get through it.

Funny thing about the old standards?  They work.  Funny thing about new things like Killer 7?  Usually don't work as well and fall flat on their face.

I hate people like this.  They have two speeds: Sucking forefather cock and going "wow" over anything crazily different regardless of quality.  I call this "pretentious artist syndrome" where you go to art college and they teach you two things:  The old masters and crazy modern art.  All discussions of quality and skill as well as creativity goes out the window as people focus on how crazy it is/how old it is. 

What Nintendo's doing is trying to eject the symbol of the off-putting controller in non-gamer's minds, and ease them into gaming with a controller that looks like something they're used to.  Normal controllers aren't broken, they're not outdated.  They're not archaic or overused.  Gaming isn't stagnant because of the existing genres, existing controls, or existing franchises. 

Gaming's stagnant because the faggots who are in control ran out of ideas/stopped caring about their shit ten years ago and they've made it ridiculously difficult for new blood to get a foothold.  Gaming's stagnant because no one's pushing the limits of what genres can do, no one's playing around, no one's going over the top.  Most of all, gaming's stagnant because for 90% of you, they put cute animu artwork/a black sportsman/a franchise on the cover and you snap it up regardless of quality.  You buy ports and re-releases.  Instead of seeing something like Mario Party or Wario Ware and thinking "well, it's clever and fun for five minutes, and that's all that matters" you should instead be going "NO, that's NOT fucking GOOD enough.  Fuck you, take it BACK, do it AGAIN."

Change is good when something is broken/dead.  Change for no reason other than to change things fucks things up.  The important thing about the Revolution is not the new controller in and of itself.  It's not the new control schemes that might lead to new genres.  The important thing is that it's a more advanced tool to help storytellers immerse their audience in a story through smoother control.  The games that use this thing are important, the controller's just a conduit.

The fact that engrossing gameplay detracts from any graphical shortcomings should highlight that a game should be played for fun, not to compare it to photos to see how realistic it is in comparison. Nice graphics are a plus, but mean nothing if the game itself is utter crap. Me, I'm looking fwd to the Rev, at least its different.

Xbox can almost still keep up with the latest graphics, but PS2 definitely needs to go graphics are starting to look outdated with all the jaggys. I'm a big gameplay should be more important than just graphics video gamer, but that shouldn't stop progress. Sure next gen won't be as big an improvement as other generations, but it needs to happen. Although I could've waited one more year.

fuck hd

As a fine example how newly released low tech games can still be more fun than whole virtual worlds stuffed with 3D objects: I'm playing Drill Dozer right now on the GBA. And you should do the same. Who was it again that said "gameplay is key"?

>>As a fine example how newly released low tech games can still be more fun than whole virtual worlds stuffed with 3D objects: I'm playing Drill Dozer right now on the GBA. And you should do the same

Damn right, Gunstar Future Heroes = A fine example of how 2D finesse easily outplays 3D garbage

good point my fellow 2-D lovers, 2D is still king for tough action. games like smash brothers, viewtiful joe, and dare i bring it up again? cave story, take advantage of the simplicity of 2-d gameplay. it'd be undoubtably much harder to do those games in full 3-D. in 2-D everything is laid out in front of you. 3-d can hide stuff behind you, make jumps that SHOULD be simple difficult due to lack of depth percetion from a TV screen, and can generally had a LOT of hassle.

The Nintendo DS is the real winner here.

>>52 speaks the truth!

>>51
You're totally doing it wrong. I've only had that problem with three games, Lament of Innocence, Turok 1, and Daikatana, two of which aren't even true 3D but first-person. May have a depth perception problem.
Oh wait, GTA too, but that's only if you're trying for the helicopter you have to bother with hard-ass jumps.
Anyway, I'm sticking with PC, because the only game I'm getting is Supreme Commander. I probably won't be heard of ever again once it gets released. But just in case pipeworks feels ambitious, I'm tagging a PS3 for the next Godzilla game. Save The Earth is probably the greatest party game ever, edging out Smash Bros. But it would score even higher if the challenges were fully coded in and supported multiplayer, and had a few extra melee modes. I don't know if anymore SMT games are coming but if they are, added bonus. I'll probably only use it to play DVDs and artsy games past them two. Most of the PS2 games I've beaten with one rental so I don't think this'll be too different. I'll also pick up the next GTA if it looks like it adds enough content and lacks shitty music like San Andreas did. (Biggest reason I skipped it.) I don't really see the console systems doing anything special this time around, I just have a few favorites I'm getting the PS3 for.

>>52
Yea, I have to agree, the ds is easily the greatest system on the market today >xbox,360,ps2,psp,gc,gba,gizmondo, and the phantom

>>55

Gizmondo am scam.

>>4
Actually, the GC was profitable for Nintendo.

Nintendo's plan is maximize profits for their consoles, it doesn't really matter how many consoles are sold if you lose money on each one, does it?

Same goes for PS3. Right now, the Xbox for MS is just something that they do because they can afford to do it, just like everything else MS does. Same for the PS line-up, except that this is profitable for Sony.