This thread needs more Penny Arcade:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/American_McGee_Strawberry_Shortcake.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/94/American_McGee_Strawberry_Shortcake.jpg
McGee: PS3, 360 Mere 'Upgrades'
- Thread starter Readykilowatt
- Start date
Where exactly do you live where everyone feels that way?? I assume then that watching TV is not accepted then, since it´s about the same deal. Just instead of chasing pixels, you are merely watching them.
Wow, what the hell are you going on about?? I am a gamer, have been for the mayority of my life and devote a significant part of my money to it. I do not consider myself a loser, I also exercise plenty, read books, hang out with my friends, go to the movies, listen to music, etc.
Gaming isn´t bad, it´s just that ANY activity that is done in excess is bad for you.
I particularly think that you are just being arrogant and patronizing, but thanks for your input.
While I personnaly I dont agree with him (maybe in part), it can be true for those how didnt play current gen, will not play next gen 360/PS3 but will play Wii for all the already discussed reasons, as for those this is just prettier games but wii is the (for them) real new/next generation of entertainment.
So for many gamers, this is not true, for no gamers (future gamers) and some gamers this is true.
So for many gamers, this is not true, for no gamers (future gamers) and some gamers this is true.
If I had said millions of Americans play video games on an hourly or even a daily basis then I could see how that could be perceived as being anti social. Sure just like alcohol, watching TV, watching movies, smoking marijuana, etc. playing video games really does not benefit the end user all that much except as a form to entertain oneself or a group of people. And just like those activities if done all the time it would be unhealthy.
In my circle of friends playing video games is just as acceptable as watching the next Grey's Anatomy TV show. It is an unproductive couple of hours throughout the week that is meant to take us away from the daily grind that is work and other oddities in life that cause stress. Reading a book is the same thing to others, except they do nothing but read books and have no social life. Anything taken to the extreme can be unhealthy, but it is good to be entertained every now and then in order to relieve stres or immerse onself in an environment where you can do things you've dreamed of doing but are simply unable to in real life.
So, in essence I guess I am agreeing with you. But it is still a form of entertainment. And I will revise my earlier statement. In many parts of the US and based upon my own personal experience playing video games as a form of entertainment is not considered anti social. When playing video games as a way of life and that being the highlight of one's life then yes, it is unhealthy and pathetic.
Now, if this issue is to be pressed further then we will make a new thread on it and put it into the appropriate forum.
In my circle of friends playing video games is just as acceptable as watching the next Grey's Anatomy TV show. It is an unproductive couple of hours throughout the week that is meant to take us away from the daily grind that is work and other oddities in life that cause stress. Reading a book is the same thing to others, except they do nothing but read books and have no social life. Anything taken to the extreme can be unhealthy, but it is good to be entertained every now and then in order to relieve stres or immerse onself in an environment where you can do things you've dreamed of doing but are simply unable to in real life.
So, in essence I guess I am agreeing with you. But it is still a form of entertainment. And I will revise my earlier statement. In many parts of the US and based upon my own personal experience playing video games as a form of entertainment is not considered anti social. When playing video games as a way of life and that being the highlight of one's life then yes, it is unhealthy and pathetic.
Now, if this issue is to be pressed further then we will make a new thread on it and put it into the appropriate forum.
There are amazingly few things in life that "taken to excess" are not counter-productive in some way, shape, or form. Way to make a large, mocking, inane post that in the end says absolutely nothing.
I typed this out in a hasty fashion. The last time I did this on B3D, it causes confusion in a thread. So readers beware 
We probably need to distill what Mr. McGee say to identify his message.
In my previous post, I tried to avoid the use of "next-gen" because no one knows what it should be. The media will probably refine/define the term once we have a dominant manufacturer this coming gen.
I think to give Nintendo full credit, we will probably need to look beyond hardware and consider the kind of games/interaction Wii can coax from developers. Sony and MS obviously went the technology and business model advancement route (which is *not* evil/bad by any means).
IMHO, some of the next-gen games out there really plays exactly like current gen games. I stopped looking at some of them because they no longer draw me in (like FF).
Granted there are some refreshing approaches like the Eye of Judgement (New interaction model + Cross-genre), Assassin's Creed (Controls + realistic game world), MotorStorm (Somewhat new level of immersion due to realistic 1st person view). There are also still room for innovation using the current controller concept (e.g., Katamari).
+ Wii Developer Factor
The key Nintendo difference, in my view, is: By planning and framing the larger game development problem differently, Nintendo may be able to impose different mindset and focus from developers. i.e., Nintendo is authorizing developers to free themselves from the "tyranny" of better graphics in exchange for more thinking for gameplay.
This is part of the Wii formula (not merely controller innovation). If devs spend less time on graphics, they can just stop there and release a normal, less eye-pleasing, cross-platform game. However the good Wii devs will focus more on immersive/natural interaction (just like good PS3 devs will spend more time on exploiting the additional h/w power). I also don't believe that a good dev will do an ugly Wii game just because its GPU is less powerful. They can always rely more on art direction and stylized artwork to present the game in unique and pleasant ways.
Now I do not know whether this plan will work for sure. At least Nintendo thinks it's worth betting a generation of console on it.
+ Wii Business Factors
To date, EyeToy gets my vote for being the most innovative, but it's limited distribution constrains its impact. More aggressive/intensive R&D is also needed to find mainstream applications/game "models" for it. There is also the entire exercise to explain the Wii concept to consumers. While there is no USD 2 billion invesments in Cell fabs, these are still expensive and time-consuming moves for a company like Nintendo (especially carried out globally). It's not easy because of all the business and marketing implications, plus the follow-through. So I think calling Wii "just a different controller" is seeing only a partial picture.
+ Wii Consumer Factors
For now, I'm seeing bits and pieces of hopeful signs from non-gamers. I mean actual people telling me about Wii (I didn't start the conversation). Actual quotes include: "I can do that". It's true that the numbers are still small. We will have to see how it turn out when Nintendo goes full swing vs Sony and MS.
We can all criticize or not believe in Nintendo's approach. I would grade them based on the full picture. Let's wait and see what the other devs are able to generate under these new set of console manufacturer assumptions.
Whether we call it the era of HD gaming, or online gaming, or the era of casual gamers for this gen is anybody's guess.
Ok, did I mess up this thread ?
We probably need to distill what Mr. McGee say to identify his message.
In my previous post, I tried to avoid the use of "next-gen" because no one knows what it should be. The media will probably refine/define the term once we have a dominant manufacturer this coming gen.
I think to give Nintendo full credit, we will probably need to look beyond hardware and consider the kind of games/interaction Wii can coax from developers. Sony and MS obviously went the technology and business model advancement route (which is *not* evil/bad by any means).
IMHO, some of the next-gen games out there really plays exactly like current gen games. I stopped looking at some of them because they no longer draw me in (like FF).
Granted there are some refreshing approaches like the Eye of Judgement (New interaction model + Cross-genre), Assassin's Creed (Controls + realistic game world), MotorStorm (Somewhat new level of immersion due to realistic 1st person view). There are also still room for innovation using the current controller concept (e.g., Katamari).
+ Wii Developer Factor
The key Nintendo difference, in my view, is: By planning and framing the larger game development problem differently, Nintendo may be able to impose different mindset and focus from developers. i.e., Nintendo is authorizing developers to free themselves from the "tyranny" of better graphics in exchange for more thinking for gameplay.
This is part of the Wii formula (not merely controller innovation). If devs spend less time on graphics, they can just stop there and release a normal, less eye-pleasing, cross-platform game. However the good Wii devs will focus more on immersive/natural interaction (just like good PS3 devs will spend more time on exploiting the additional h/w power). I also don't believe that a good dev will do an ugly Wii game just because its GPU is less powerful. They can always rely more on art direction and stylized artwork to present the game in unique and pleasant ways.
Now I do not know whether this plan will work for sure. At least Nintendo thinks it's worth betting a generation of console on it.
+ Wii Business Factors
To date, EyeToy gets my vote for being the most innovative, but it's limited distribution constrains its impact. More aggressive/intensive R&D is also needed to find mainstream applications/game "models" for it. There is also the entire exercise to explain the Wii concept to consumers. While there is no USD 2 billion invesments in Cell fabs, these are still expensive and time-consuming moves for a company like Nintendo (especially carried out globally). It's not easy because of all the business and marketing implications, plus the follow-through. So I think calling Wii "just a different controller" is seeing only a partial picture.
+ Wii Consumer Factors
For now, I'm seeing bits and pieces of hopeful signs from non-gamers. I mean actual people telling me about Wii (I didn't start the conversation). Actual quotes include: "I can do that". It's true that the numbers are still small. We will have to see how it turn out when Nintendo goes full swing vs Sony and MS.
We can all criticize or not believe in Nintendo's approach. I would grade them based on the full picture. Let's wait and see what the other devs are able to generate under these new set of console manufacturer assumptions.
Whether we call it the era of HD gaming, or online gaming, or the era of casual gamers for this gen is anybody's guess.
Ok, did I mess up this thread ?
nope. actually i think your post is too profound for this thread. i hope you're carrying your flame-retardants.
oh, and for the record, Alice was a great game ; )
There isn't really an accepted definition of "next generation" other than the one that succeeds this one. Everyone who likes to dig into the nitty-gritty of console technology understand that means a ten-fold increase in processing power every five years. A few people in this thread have said that the Wii branches away from the generational progression, and isn't truly next generation. It's said that a paradigm shift is not "next generation."
If you ascribe to the theory of evolution you know that a paradigm shift is the next generation. The organism that becomes better at what it does evolves, but the organism that moves into a new environment risks its survival but stands to gain much more. Humans gave up prehensile tails and a greater ability to climb trees and get to food in favor of walking upright and having a large cranium, both unsafe evolutionary bets. I'd argue, however, that we're the next generation, apes are not.
I think McGee's mentality is the same one that drives the "innovate or die" crowd. Nintendo clearly stated that was their position when they cited Blue Ocean Strategy as their modus operandi. I'd say that Wii is the next generation, where PS3 and Xbox 360 are the dead end of this generation's evolutionary path.
If you ascribe to the theory of evolution you know that a paradigm shift is the next generation. The organism that becomes better at what it does evolves, but the organism that moves into a new environment risks its survival but stands to gain much more. Humans gave up prehensile tails and a greater ability to climb trees and get to food in favor of walking upright and having a large cranium, both unsafe evolutionary bets. I'd argue, however, that we're the next generation, apes are not.
I think McGee's mentality is the same one that drives the "innovate or die" crowd. Nintendo clearly stated that was their position when they cited Blue Ocean Strategy as their modus operandi. I'd say that Wii is the next generation, where PS3 and Xbox 360 are the dead end of this generation's evolutionary path.
It occurs to me once again, that to this day I have no idea what to expect commercially from Wii. Will the stale graphics simply be too much to overcome? Will the new controls add an unprecendented fun factor that changes the industry or, be imprecise and quickly become simply tiresome? The very draw of the new console becoming a negative ironically?
I just dont know. Need to play one to get a better idea.
I do wish though, that Wii had gone with at least a X1600XT level of graphics. You know, not the moon but something nice, compact. That might at 640X480 rival the competition anyway.
I also consider, that if the Wii did take off in a huge manner, I'm not sure what prevents Sony and MS from simply copying them, I suppose. Other than patents which can probably be circumvented.
________
Live Sex Webshows
I just dont know. Need to play one to get a better idea.
I do wish though, that Wii had gone with at least a X1600XT level of graphics. You know, not the moon but something nice, compact. That might at 640X480 rival the competition anyway.
I also consider, that if the Wii did take off in a huge manner, I'm not sure what prevents Sony and MS from simply copying them, I suppose. Other than patents which can probably be circumvented.
________
Live Sex Webshows
Last edited by a moderator:
Rangers said:
A Nintendo expert can probably answer this better than I do. Off the top of my head, Wii will have the following advantages (assuming response is huge as stated in your question above):
* Wii's fast growing user base and huge buzz/momentum (The controller is bundled). Imitations will always be "second class"
* First party games, and the people/talent pool behind Nintendo
* Price (especially for non- and casual gamers)
* Brand (for past and existing Ninty DS, GBA, Wii ... customers)
* Patents (depends on how broad they are, and how aggressive Ninty wants to defend them. For reference, look at Apple iPod patents)
The unknowns are the "follow up" punches. I do hope for Nintendo's sake that there is some sort of retention mechanism (e.g., iTunes Music Store to iPod, XBL to XBox, ...).
MS is sustaining its momentum with various releases. Sony is keeping mums on its game plan. Still waiting impatiently for TGS
You mean like the Phantom? It was mostly good for defrauding investors.
sorry to ruin your n-party (j/k
)but:
1. That idea of hype you're talk about is largely based on the reactions at E3, but the E3 attendees are not exactly your average joe, also they were starved for info and had to wait for hours to get their hands on it (because of the booth-design). Obviously the wii could explode in hype when released, but I wouldn't take it for granted.
"The controller is bundled": true, but there are examples where later introduced accessory was introduced successfully and became standard (Dual Analog, Dual Shock on PSX or Rumble Pack on N64)
'Imitations will always be "second class"': Ok, that just doesn't make sense in the console world.
2. that is a little bit biased, because Sony did relese as much good, if not groundbreaking (ico, sotc) first party games last gen. Microsoft will also be able to have a pretty strong first party division next gen as they buy more and more devs.
3. agreed, especially to "non- and casual gamers"
4. I would agree if there was no Playstation involved, but it is, so at least one competitor has a brand as strong as Nintendo.
The argument that nintendo handheld owners automatically buy nintendo consoles is wrong. Think of N64 and GC.
5. Both MS and Sony have patents for roughly the same kind of device issued long before the Wii was introduced.
Nope. If you have a horsey creature, well two horsey creatures in a mum and a dad, and they have offspring. Their offspring are little horsey creatures. They are the next generation of horsey creatures. Then there's a freak mutation and mummy horsey creatures next baby is a gangly, long necked, yellow with brown patches oddity. That's not a new generation, that's a new species.
A generation is the descendants of the previous generation. All the next consoles are as such. It's probably fair to say McGee just picked the wrong word. His real point was that two out of three consoles aren't changing anything and that's not the sort of progression we need. That's not defining a new generation though. His language skills need refining
This topic is way too "dangerous" so I won't comment, yet I have to address this
There, I was thinking that these multi Billions worth corporations were in for the love, while in reality they were only pushing their own "economical" agenda all along. Damn!
This guys is a genius, I mean he read through Sony and MS' real ambitions like they were an open book!American McGee said:
There, I was thinking that these multi Billions worth corporations were in for the love, while in reality they were only pushing their own "economical" agenda all along. Damn!
sorry to ruin your n-party (j/k
No worries. I am not a Nintendo fan.
Nope. I can assure you those few friends don't know what E3 is
They are in the F&B (Food and Beverages) industry, the IT industry, and I don't know what the other guy do anymore. I have no idea how and where they find out about Wii. None of them play video games (but they bought consoles for their kids). They are too busy.
Hmm... you might want to read the post again. The original question is framed in the context of *if* Wii catches on in a huge way. So your point above may not apply.
See above (*If Wii succeed in a huge way*, then the brand would begin to establish itself just like iPod. The rest will be also-ran, me-toos and imitations in the average Joe's eyes).
It still doesn't take that unique advantages from Nintendo, does it ? Sony and MS can be strong in their own games, but Nintendo will have its own Wii stronghold. Assuming they start to copy now, the multiple month/year hardware and software development gap would give more headway to Wii *if it already succeeds in a huge way*.
See above again about the premise of the original post. It is not that easy to overtake a runaway success. As strong as the Playstation brand is, it cannot catch up with Nintendo DS when it has achieved that level of recognition and momentum (It will take time !).
Depends on how the patents are written and what the claims are. e.g., The iPod patents are not specific to the actual mechanisms. It also includes minor things like acceleration of scrolling that makes a usable UI on a small device. Hurdles like that can also slow imitations since there are more things to consider now.
Type_Raver
Newcomer
Thats beautiful, that is autosig material right there, haha
Patsu also made a good comment on the 1st page with regards to interaction vs technology for the respective consoles.
standing ovation
Regular
I think the main difference between Nintendo and its competitors is their divergent philosophies.
Nintendo's bread & butter is video games -- not so with Microsoft and Sony. For them, the industry is merely a launch pad for broader (and more lucrative) ventures. :neutral:
So while Nintendo retrofits its consoles (with today’s technology), the competition future-proofs theirs.
Nintendo's bread & butter is video games -- not so with Microsoft and Sony. For them, the industry is merely a launch pad for broader (and more lucrative) ventures. :neutral:
So while Nintendo retrofits its consoles (with today’s technology), the competition future-proofs theirs.
Last edited by a moderator:
Why do people believe that Nintendo is the only company capable of "innovative" gameplay for the family?. I started this gen playing a lot of GC games with my daughter like Zelda, and the various Mario games. But we're coming to the end of this generation playing an insane amount of Guitar Hero, and have thoroughly enjoyed Eyetoy's Anti-Grav, DDR, Karaoke, and Katamari .. toss in a fair bit of Sly Cooper, Jak and Daxter, and Ratchet and Clank. There's a reason why Sony so dominated another generation, and it has everything to do with the vast number of quality games that cover every spectrum of gamers.
