Gamasutra: The Designer's Notebook: PS3 versus Wii

["Nerve-Damage"]

The Designer's Notebook: PS3 versus Wii - The Designer's Perspective

Forgive me if this was posted already.

So now we’re at another generation. The Xbox 360 came out swinging early, and it’s a good solid machine. Then there’s the PS3, which is undoubtedly the most powerful game console ever built but too expensive, and the Wii, which has taken a radically different approach. Who’ll end up as the also-ran?

There’s no question that more computing power enables us to do things that we couldn’t otherwise do. We can put more characters on the screen; we can put more brains in their heads. We can use CPU-intensive techniques like inverse kinematics to create better animation, especially interactions between characters in games that involve a lot of physical contact such as wrestling or rugby. Our physics and visual effects will be both spectacular and accurate. In short, the PS3 is a programmer’s and a filmmaker’s dream. If you’re a visual thinker, if much of the entertainment that you provide is through the richness or the verisimilitude of your imagery, then there’s no question that the PS3 is the way to go.

The PS3 is another step in a long chain of graphical and computing improvements that began with Spacewar. It’s a big step, and technically speaking, the inclusion of the Cell processor is a very important – and challenging – innovation. Most game programmers don’t know much about multiprocessing. The PS3 raises the bar, and to get the most out of it requires some high-level wizardry.

From a design standpoint, however, the PS3 is evolutionary, not revolutionary. It doesn’t change much about our job. It makes it easier to design the same stuff we’ve always designed, but it doesn’t encourage us to try anything particularly new.

So who, at the end of the day, will be the also-ran in this generation of consoles? On the global scale, I’d say it could well be neither the PS3 or the Wii, but the Xbox 360. The PS3 will win over the hardcore gamers who have to have the fastest, most amazing machine available. The Wii will skim off the younger players and those who don’t have as much money to spend.

Both have the advantage of being made in Japan, so they’ll crowd the Xbox right out of that market. In the US and Europe, it’s harder to say, but I see the Xbox’s early start as more of a liability than a benefit. They’ve racked up several million sales, but they can no longer claim to be the latest, greatest thing – especially as the PS3 plays Blu-Ray disks out of the box, but HD-DVD is only available for the Xbox as an add-on. The Dreamcast got an early start too, and look how that ended.

 

[Corwin_B]

If the "360 is Dreamcast Redux" stealth troll had been at the start of the article instead of the end, it would have saved me a couple of minutes.

 

[Capeta]

If the "360 is Dreamcast Redux" stealth troll had been at the start of the article instead of the end, it would have saved me a couple of minutes.

Agreed. Anyway this PS3 is most powerful and Wii is revolutionary discussions have been done to death. No need to retread old hat.

 

[Gholbine]

If the "360 is Dreamcast Redux" stealth troll had been at the start of the article instead of the end, it would have saved me a couple of minutes.

It's a valid point whether people want to hear it or not. All it says is that a head start means nothing, and that a solid early software lineup also means nothing, in the grand scheme.

 

[Capeta]

Thread lock please.

 

[aselto]

It's a valid point whether people want to hear it or not. All it says is that a head start means nothing, and that a solid early software lineup also means nothing, in the grand scheme.

Dreamcast was dropped by 3rd party publishers once PS2 launched in the US while 360 will have extremely good line-up next year and that's why this comparison is not valid.

 

[Shifty Geezer]

It's a valid point whether people want to hear it or not. All it says is that a head start means nothing, and that a solid early software lineup also means nothing, in the grand scheme.

The article, going by the quotes, seems to ignore the strong game lineup from XB360. Why will hardcores buy PS3 for its extra power if the same games can be had in the same quality on a cheaper machine? There are certain self-appointed elitests who have to spend big bucks to get the 'best' of things (where the best is often bigger numbers and not much else) but I think theyre few and far between. Real hardcore gamers, which is a term too losely applied to cover mainstream gamers too, just care about the mainstream games - FPS, racers, sports, a few RPGs etc. - and they'll pick the platform that offers those games at a sensible pricepoint IMO.

 

[StefanS]

Not another round of "who is doomed" now... thus locked...