McGee: PS3, 360 Mere 'Upgrades'

[Readykilowatt]

Game designer American McGee (American McGee's Alice) has offered some blunt insight on the console race, saying that the Wii is the only real next-gen system, while the PS3 and 360 are mere "upgrades."

Next-Gen sibling website ComputerandVideogames.com posted a snippet of an upcoming interview with McGee, who said, "The only truly next-gen console out there is the Wii. Everything else is just a video card and processor upgrade."

He added, "I sense that Nintendo is going to capture the hearts of gamers while Microsoft and Sony stab each other in the neck for market domination. Nintendo is focused on innovation and games. The other guys are focused on making money."

http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=3635&Itemid=2

 

[scooby_dooby]

Stupidest thing I've ever heard. N has simply created a different control interface, not improved, not more advanced, simply different.

It's also pretty funny that Nintendo is the only one not selling at a major loss, yet the other two are the ones who are only interested in making money.

 

[thatdude90210]

I agree with him somewhat that the other two are upgrades, but I don't think that the Wii is true next-gen either. The Wii would have been true next-gen if it had the new controller AND the processor & graphic level of the other two.

 

[Powderkeg]

I would take his comments much more seriously if he had managed to release a game of his own since Alice.

 

[INKster]

I bet his real name is not as cool as "American McGee".

BTW, i hated "AM: Alice".

 

[Shifty Geezer]

I guess that makes PS3 and XB360 the same generation as PS1 and N64, seeing as the generation he likens them too was just upgrades in GPUs and CPUs from the previous gen. Also why doesn't PS3's motion control get it into the next-gen category? It's added a bit of everything, improving every component and adding more abilities. Wii has mostly just added different control abilities with few upgrades elsewhere. Or is a new generation only possible by adding direct pointing control?

 

[patsu]

Perhaps he meant Nintendo Wii is focusing on breakthrough in interaction (game play) while Xbox 360 and PS3 focused on technological breakthrough and multi-functions.

The Wiimote is more than a light gun since it can detect precise motion, position and probably derive velocity information. If coupled with visuals and audio feedback, it can be interesting for certain class of games. Also I think not all Wii games need to involve large movements.

Last week, I have a CEO (He's definitely a non-gamer) talk to me about Wii, and how he wants to buy one to play with his daughter. The little girl has a GBA now. I think parents like him feel that they can "connect" with their kids via Wii. The traditional "thumb twiddling" games can be intimidating to a non-gamer (It's somewhat anti-social, I'm not sure if that's the right word). He specifically mentioned that he feels more comfortable with the stick.

So I think there could be a real upside for Nintendo here. But the verdict is still out there.

 

[Urian]

PS3 and 360 aren´t nothing more than a Xbox HD with extra memory and some new features and a more complex online service, this is how I see the next gen.

If someone launches now a console with 2004 PC tech for 199$, a DVD-Drive, HD and the same services I believe that this console could beat without problems Sony and Microsoft monsters in sales and marketwise.

 

[Sonic]

I'm sorry, but games are no longer really looked at as being anti social. Video games are a mainstream market with millions of adult Americans playing them on a weekly basis as a form of entertainment. I just had to let that one out, sorry if it came out in the wrong way.

As for the Wii being a true next generation games machine...this man is flat out wrong. It is not a next gen machine if we wish to go by the rumor specs, it is simply the same machine with a clockspeed and a few enhancements along with a brand new controller scheme. It is a paradigm shift if you wish to call it that. It will enable new types of gameplay that will work great for some games and maybe not for others. Nintendo selling the Wii and making profit from it is an entirely smart move. Why not sell a chiep piece of hardware that has the potential to sell millions more than the Gamecube and make a bit of dough from it? All the better since Nintendo will be reaping the rewards from the software as well.

The PS3 and Xbox 360 are indeed true next generation machines compared to the Wii. They offer increased processing capabilties and graphics that offer devs to better realize their vision of what they want in a game. It might not offer a "revolutionary" style of gameplay, but that doesn't mean the gameplay won't get better or things like better physics and AI won't break the mold of stale gameplay.

Sony also has Eye Toy from the last time I checked and there are definitely some interesting things that can be done with that in regards to gameplay. True, it started with the PS2, but that doesn't mean it cannot be taken that much further with the PS3.

 

[linthat22]

I kinda have to agree with McGee. (since you all see a million posts from me in here, ya'll know I'm no expert)

 

[StefanS]

I'm sorry, but games are no longer really looked at as being anti social. Video games are a mainstream market with millions of adult Americans playing them on a weekly basis as a form of entertainment. I just had to let that one out, sorry if it came out in the wrong way.

I think what patsu tried to say was that Wii games might be less intimidating and more accessible to non-gaming persons.

EDIT: You something like bridging the gap between gamers and non-gamers.

 

[rabidrabbit]

To me comments like this sound more like attention grapping, wanting to be viewed as "thinking differently".
PS3, Wii and xbox360 are all next gen consoles, they just have their next genness distributed differently.

Silly McGee and Pretentious. No one thinks you're cool or forward thinking.

 

[Deepak]

American McGee's Alice?

Which game is that?

 

[Shifty Geezer]

Perhaps he meant Nintendo Wii is focusing on breakthrough in interaction (game play) while Xbox 360 and PS3 focused on technological breakthrough and multi-functions.
...
So I think there could be a real upside for Nintendo here. But the verdict is still out there.

I agree with the market thing, but that's not a new generation. That's a different generation, or a branch as it were. When GB launched, it opened up gaming to a new audience. That didn't make it a new generation, and that didn't make the SENS and Megadrive still part of the old generation when they just offered upgrades to the same audience.

Looking at it from another POV, for the existing gamers who like their games and want the next tech to improve them, the Wii isn't next-gen.

They are all next-gen, because they all the next iteration in a series of machines from these companies. The fact that they take different approaches to games and selling themselves to the public has zip to do with which generation they are! What he's saying is if in a family the parents have three kids, two of which are the same as their parents and enjoy the opera and tea and scones, and the third child enjoys hard rock and junkfood, that the two kids are the same generation as their parents.

 

[Bobbler]

I can't say I agree with him. Adding a new interface doesn't patently make anything better -- it's a side step or branching of the journey to interactive and enjoyable gameplay, not necessarily an improvement upon anything we've seen before... It's different, but what makes it better or actually next-generation? If I'm playing a fighting game, an adventure game, etc., what makes wiggling the controller any more enjoyable than pushing another button? After the initial novelty of the difference wears off, it stops being special and you still have to find other ways to make the experience worth it.

I tend to agree with Mark Rein and the Katamari creator on this one -- drastically different control methods aren't the basket I'd put all my eggs in if I was trying to create a new console... Something like PS3 is doing probably where I'd go, actually -- vastly upgraded GPU/CPU with additional control inputs.

That's not to say Wii won't have a lot of great games (smash bros brawl!)... but if DS' use of novelty controls is any sort of example, then I'd say most of the uses won't be adding muc and just thrown in because they can. I'm glad Nintendo is smart enough to include a classic style controller.

 

[ROG27]

I agree with him somewhat that the other two are upgrades, but I don't think that the Wii is true next-gen either. The Wii would have been true next-gen if it had the new controller AND the processor & graphic level of the other two.

I think Wii would have been truly next-gen if it just displayed 3d graphics in 3d space (or multiple vantage points utilizing stereoscopic vision). Interacting using a 3d controller with a 2d display just doesn't mesh well in my opinion. Well, they always have the next-next-gen to straighten this out, I guess.

 

[phenix]

Right. True next generation consoles are the ones our children will own. And next generation after that are the ones our grandchildren will have. And this goes on and on...

 

[cthellis42]

Game designer American McGee (American McGee's Alice) has offered some blunt insight on the console race, saying that the Wii is the only real next-gen system, while the PS3 and 360 are mere "upgrades."

Next-Gen sibling website ComputerandVideogames.com posted a snippet of an upcoming interview with McGee, who said, "The only truly next-gen console out there is the Wii. Everything else is just a video card and processor upgrade."

Gee. Kinda makes you wonder why he's really just developed for computers, doesn't it? They're only ever video card and processor upgrades!

 

[fearsomepirate]

He should have completed his comment by saying "Games will become the dominant form of art in the 21st century."

 

[Entropy]

I'm sorry, but games are no longer really looked at as being anti social. Video games are a mainstream market with millions of adult Americans playing them on a weekly basis as a form of entertainment. I just had to let that one out, sorry if it came out in the wrong way.

Millions of adult Americans spend time watching porn on a weekly basis as well. Being common doesn't make an activity socially accepted.
While this forum is obviously a place where the people are very accepting of game playing, my impression is that most parts of society do not feel that sitting on your ass chasing coloured pixels is exactly the pinnacle of human ambition and achievement. Face it - playing games takes you exactly nowhere in society, and is not helping you physically either. People are well aware of this, unless they are so entrenched in gaming that they are in complete denial.

If anything, game playing is regarded roughly as drinking alcohol is. It is common, it can be enjoyable in moderation and in social circumstances, but once it gets to the point where you give it a large part of your attention and time, you have a problem. Just as with alcohol, people do get addicted, and just as with alcohol, some societies try to rehabilitate the addicted if the consequences of their addiction gets completely out of hand, at which point the individual is already in a very bad spot.

Gamers are losers.
If the best you can figure out to do with your time and resources as a human being is to chase pixels in front of a computer screen, well....
In moderation, gaming is entertainment for those who have the time for and interest in that. In excess, gaming is pathetic.

Those are my personal opinions, but they are shared by most everyone in my particular social group. Because of the people they attract, these discussion forums can act as a haven for those that wish to affirm their gaming addiction. An outside perspective might be healthy.