"Saturation point"? Innovation>Graphics? Read!

A lot of the time 80 year old people (or older people in general) are correct.

Fact of the matter is, that in a lot of games, a mouse would be much better suited to do what the right analog stick is doing.
Nintendo is providing the gaming world with a viable alternative to the mouse plus a bunch of other neat features. I can't see how that can be a bad thing in any way.

I think that we have reached a sort of plateau, of maybe a few generations, where the gameworld possibilities are almost fixed.
We are not even near being able to do pervasive physics or convincing advanced AI. So for the time being, what we can improve, is the rendering quality and/or the way we play the game/game structure.
I know which one of those two I would choose if I had to.

 

Nothing wrong with the revmote that Nintendo will have. In fact I think it's a great idea. But this whole "Gaming today sucks!!11!!" has to stop. Some times certain people act as if Nintendo is our saviors/Jesus Christ of gaming. Sony and MS are both also doing great things today and for tomorrow's gaming world. How can people not like gaming ideas like Okami or Shadow of the Colosuss? And some people act as if a game like Spore sucks and has no innovation what so ever.

Wake up people gaming is fun and has been for quite sometime.

 

I noticed that "shallow" was a bit harsh.Tried to edit it but you quoted me before I edited.

Anyways.Its true that we have seen many true gems due to technology.

You misunderstood me.

Notice I didnt say gaming IS.I was refering to where gaming may be leading to in the future.

I have the same attitude as yours towards people that claim 3D makes gaming worse and blah blah whatever and I disagree with them but I am not saying the same thing as them.

By no means I am saying that games before where better than today or that games today offer nothing new.

Technology brought great and very welcoming advancements into gaming.

My point though is that despite technology offering HUUUUUUGE potential, GREEAT possibilities, only few devs are able to exploit them due to the reasons I mentioned.

Ofcourse I want visual improvements, ofcourse I want realistic physics, ofcourse I want hollywood quality graphics and sound, ofcourse I want superb AI, ofcourse I want games that make target demos like Killzone a reality.

Problem is most devs are uncapable to survive, despite being talentive, and great in their jobs.
No financial back up.This is the problem.Being creative raises cost, exploiting technology possibilities raises cost--->risk is raised

DeanoC was lucky he found Sony's treatment very welcome.If you read his blog, he was struggling to maintain his team, and independence at the same time.Things that are hard to get both these days despite having superb potential.
The existence of Heavenly Sword was saved at the last moment the way I see it.We wouldnt be salivating over these title with highly potential if they didnt find someone who would give them financial support and independence at the same time to be creative.

I can only imagine how many other great developers could have offered something great if they were lucky but werent.

 

It needs to stop if it is not true, personally I think that is half true, in % terms there is much less games than there is used to be.

BTW I think that PS3 also has a change of being innovative if they include things like the EyeToy, a micro/headset that trackball controller they have or even those MEM chips that someone mention before somehere in the foruns both it seems they will not go that way (meybe Nintendo make pressure enought to change that).

 

Oh well if finanicials is what you meant thing I sorta agree. I guess there will or should be more dev teams that join big companies like NT did. EA, Sony, MS, Ubisoft, etc. will probably try to pick lots of these smaller teams up "hopefully".

 

Do you mean % wise as in 80% of games on the SNES/Genesis were great, while 40% of games are great on the PS2/Xbox/GC?

And I personally don't think it takes an eyetoy or revmote to make a next-gen game innovative. Games like Spore to me are innovative yet still use the same type of convential hardware as always.

 

Spore is innovative, but I question if it'll be fun. It's also one of how many innovative titles? For me the epitome of game innovative was the 16 bit era, the Amiga/ST days. Powerful computers with mouse control saw a whole load of new genres that CGA PCs and D-pad only consoles hadn't enabled. It was the birthing-era of God games (when Molyneux mixed new ideas with good games...), complex graphical RPGs (Dungeon Master was responsible for a lot), and all sorts. A lot of these games were developed by small teams who all had a hand in it.

There were plenty of generic 2D platformers and general game clones of course (half of which were Ocean film tie-ins!), as with any creative sector. But the prominence of innovation seems more to the forefront for me.

The transition to 3D also saw a glut of new game types, like FPSes Wolfenstein 3D/Doom and large open world games like Driver. These are last gen innovations.

Comparing it to present consoles, we have some some innovative titles like that one where you draw your creatures on PS2 (which hasn't been reviewed highly - innovation != good game), but I feel most of the highly innovative titles tend to come with extras. Dance Dance Revolution, EyeToy, Nintendogs, are the very different games using very different control interfaces. Other big name titles like Halo and GT are just better versions of existing ideas like Doom and Outrun.

As games have got bigger and better and nicer to look at, the proportion of new ideas has decreased. Either that's me not really seeing all the wonderful innovation going on, or the result of a change in the way games are developed. And if it is me just missing all the innovation going on, a lot of other people are missing it too, including developers who complain about having their hands tied by publishers. Team17 are a good example of a once top-tier team now producing increasingly mediocre titles at the beckoning of their publishers, with products they wanted to do that never got anywhere because they never got the funding. They had a new Alien Breed remake built on the SnowBlind CON engine that would probably have been a pretty awesome shooter but it never got published.

I do think simpler systems where the developers get maxxed out without having to spend a fortune are going to encourage more innovation in gameplay. This'll be in web games and mobiles probably, until mobiles get such advanced 3D everyone expects everything to be of console quality. If Revolution can simplfy the demands of developers and provide an easy interface, as well as new interfacing methods, it's bound to get some unique things appearing for it.

 

Great post Shifty. I agree the innovation might have decrease generation to generation, but have the games (current gen) really lost anything as far as being fun? Like you said innovation != good game. And I think Nintendo next gen will keep Sony and MS honest as far as innovative titles are concerned. They will or should want to keep the innovation in mind being that Nintendo seems to be putting in the number 1 spot this time.

 

I think so, but that is subjective.

Spore is nice, it is innovative but the possibility of innovation on XB or any conventional console is much less than Rev or those things that I said from Sony is much greater.

Of curse that innovation is possible in any of those, but with new interfaces there is much more to do.

 

Nintendo may be trying to do an end-run around this with their marketing strategy. "Hey, it's Revolution, it's innovative!" will have the effect of hurting the sales of titles perceived as rehashes and stripped-down ports of PS3/360 titles. Cheap development costs and a (hopefully) large initial install base (low price + BC +virtual console will entice more than the usual early adopters) are designed to attract publishers enough to outweigh the necessity of doing something different to make your titles appealing. So, on one hand, you may need to make a new game (bad!) but it's cheap to make (good!) and it means more Revo adopters will buy it (also good!).

Publishers like money. If they can be convinced that innovation and/or new franchises will bring them more money on Revolution than "Sci-Fi Shooter 13: Two New Weapons" or "Critically Acclaimed X360 Game Redux: Bad Framerate and Dull Graphics, but Better Movement Control."

 

LOL HOW do you know you know you are going to hate playing games on it? Have you already played it? Have you already seen the games for it? If you have played it and seen the games than fine more power to you, but if you havent even touched the controller or if you havent even played with it how can you say its bad? how can you say the games are going to be kiddy? You're making blind assumptions on something you havent even seen. It looks like your mind has already been made up even before trying it out.

 

As much as I would hope these 2 things will be true, I just don't know. I'm not a Microshaft or Sony fan(I have a broken PS2 and a modded Xbox, had to mod it after it broke) and have owned every single North American Nintendo ever console made(My Nintendo ms still works...kinda)

I mean I'll by a Rev just to play Zelda and Mario games I don't care wether it's "sucessfull" or not but to assume development costs will be cheaper on Rev Vs 360 is questionable at M$ has some pretty great development tools and resources.

What does Nintendo need to do to get their install base lage enough to keep pace with Microsoft or Sony? For one thing beat the PS3 to the market, and keep the price well below the expensive 360 or PS3 that would be a huge start.

 

That is why HDTV had reached almost 100% cosumers, wait many cant buy, there already are games that lauch at low price, there is Platinum/Classic versions people make a big mistake when they say that high priced things sell but they sell just to those how can buy, there is a much bigger and more proffitable in the real mainstream (low prices).


I cant see why people still say this, if you dont like the strategy just dont play but dont say that something is bad just because you dont like it.

 

Pretending to shoot aliens is more mature I suppose. Also I'm going to buy a Rev, but unless I get drunk and go shooping I'm not buying either of those games.

 

The more time passes, the more I start to think the Revolution "remote controller" is more a gimmick than a true revolution how we play games.

If the ultimate goal in controlling games is total "mind control" with no controllers whatsoever to be held in hand(s), isn't the "Revolution" controller a step in the wrong direction.
I mean, it requires more physical effort from the gamer than the traditional gamepads whereas a mind controlled console would require very little to none physical activity.

Is the mind control the ultimate goal, is open to debate, but imo the "Revolution" controller and EyeToy are just fun toys, not the future of (games)controlling devices.
They're a fun addition in some games, but I still rather play most of my game with needing only to move my fingers.

 

The secret is in the almost .
But I think that you agree that HDTVs will only be really sucessefull when they hit the mainstream, but for that they will need to get much lower prices, it is the same argument here.

 

I don't think 'mind control' is the perfect control scheme that's being aimed for. What makes a game 'fun' is the challenge of hand eye coordination and controlling a character with limited ability. With mind control everything would etiher be perfect, in that if you are playing a tennis game and you think 'swing with the racket to hit the ball over there' it would do it, or you'd have stupid frustrations wanting to control characters to act in certain ways when they can't.

If you elliminate a lot of the challenge, as can be done with AI controlling certain aspects of the game like auto-aiming, auto-startegy, auto-this and auto-that, you end up with a simple and boring game.

You'd also have to bypass the motor control so a player didn't swing their arm when they wanted the game character to swing the racket! Plus a lot of natural motion isn't thought related at all but is controlled by the grey matter in the spine. In a game that was virtual reality, you'd instinctively try to duck if being shot at but there'd be no thought waves to monitor. You'd need to detect neural pulses down to the muscles, and intercept them too. So I guess to play such an immersive game you'd need to be paralized with a drip feed and rigged up to some serious detection ket. Or alternative you connect yourself up to physical devices that respond to your natural movements, which is what Revmote does. Normal controllers need training to establish different motion responses.

I think the ideal is finding a control system that is intuitive but still needs skill to use, so the player gets the satisfaction of being challenged and improving their skills to overcome the challenge.