Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 04:46:15 AM
With Great Power ...
I may be MIA for a few hours, but I'll check in as soon as possible.
Post by: foolish03 on February 23, 2005, 06:53:05 AM
This years E3 will be my most anticipated gaming event yet. Nintendo dont fail me now!
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 07:04:02 AM
Personally I think Nintendo's rumoured ideas make sense in theory but their timing is totally wrong. The current model will someday hit a wall where there's very little left to work with and gaming has to go in a new direction. But that's a long ways away and I think going in a new direction too soon could kill Nintendo outright. I think we went to 3D too early as post-SNES 2D games have shown that there was and is still more than can be explored in 2D alone. We still have more to do with 3D and we have tons more to work with in the online realm which is brand new for consoles.
I think going in a new direction this soon is like if someone made a 3D console in the 16 bit era. Remember early 3D games like Star Fox, Virtua Racing, Stunt Race FX, or Hard Drivin'? Imagine an entire console with games like that released at the same time as the Genesis and SNES. It would have had some really interesting games but the technology was still very early at that stage and the general public would not have accepted it. Things like that have to be eased into. If Nintendo has a truly revolutionary idea then people have to be eased into it. Few will accept an entire console that focuses on a type of gaming they are completely unfamiliar with.
Plus there's a difference between building on what's there and going in a complete different direction. The Playstation and N64 were 3D consoles but they could still play 2D games. They built on what was already there. It was like expanding a simple road into a freeway. It expanded on what was there but we were still going the same route to the same place. When Nintendo talks about the Rev they sound like they want to make another road that shoots off in another direction and aside from not taking the same route there's no indication that this new road will get us to our destination any quicker or that we'll even end up in the same final destination. It's better to expand the existing road then to make new routes that go off all over the place. If Nintendo is going into a new direction it has to compliment what we currently have. Every 2D and 3D game that uses the traditional controller design we have now has to work on the Revolution. If not the console is merely a bizzare offshoot gimmick console like the Virtual Boy.
Personally I like the concepts mentioned in this editorial and these are what I want to see in the next Nintendo console. If Nintendo wants to give me something weird and wacky as well as these then that's fine but I don't want something trying to act as a replacement for these concepts.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 23, 2005, 07:09:58 AM
However, these are still very meager changes...To me that is nothing compared to what could be done gameplay-wise...Sure it's prettier and you can add a few new gameplay aspects, and increase A.I., but to me that's not really worth a new generation, and it sure doesn't affect the immersion factor...I eagerly await Nintendo's view of the future...
(Zelda XII has the best cloud shadows ever)
Post by: JonLeung on February 23, 2005, 08:00:47 AM
NES = 2D
Super NES = better 2D
N64 = 3D
GCN = better 3D
...then it sure looks like some sort of "Revolution" is necessary. That is, if you find "even better 3D" to be boring. Of course, I neglect to mention consoles such as the various Ataris that were in the pre-NES era, so another generation that's still 3D wouldn't bring about some kind of video game crash, I would think. Maybe not soon, anyway.
Seeing as how you can't make a game with any more dimensions, I would think that Nintendo would have to be working on something more immersive. Imagining things like "true holographic 3D" or some new way to interact with characters on a television other than pressing buttons seem a bit hasty. I'm guessing the best they can do is take a step or two in those directions. But if not amazing enough, some people might not want to learn how to enjoy such a thing.
That's just how society works. Everything's got to be dumbed down to the lowest common denominator. If casual gamers like better and better and better 3D (as we know it, but just better like in the ways mentioned in the editorial) and the same ways to play, that may still sell better, no matter how innovative or new Nintendo's Revolution is. I look forward to it, but if it's not something casual gamers will like, then I fear for Nintendo.
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 08:45:02 AM
Ian Sane: I don't necessarily think Nintendo is heading down the wrong path. That all depends on what revolution is exactly. If it provides an option but very useful new method of control (for example the N64's analog stick) then it will be good. If the current controller design is compromised and the revolution isn't clearly useful (think DS which sorely needs an analog stick/nub) then it will not be so good. And yes, that's more of what I'm getting at. Nintendo may not have the wrong idea, but they're definitely jumping the gun a bit. Unfortunately, hardware transitions only come once every five years so if not now, then another five years may be too late (though I doubt it). Then again, the situation in Japan is somewhat different and I can't blame Nintendo for focusing on their home country (although I'm not sure it makes good business sense considering the size of the U.S. market).
"Imagine an entire console with games like that released at the same time as the Genesis and SNES. It would have had some really interesting games but the technology was still very early at that stage and the general public would not have accepted it. Things like that have to be eased into. If Nintendo has a truly revolutionary idea then people have to be eased into it."
This assumes that whatever idea Nintendo comes up with for revolution will be hardware limited (for example if they tried to do VR which I seriously doubt). Honestly, I don't think the revolution will be hardware limited. I think it's going to be some significant change or addition to the controller which will function exactly as they intend it to (much like the DS's touch screen which is not intrinsicly limited in any way).
"Every 2D and 3D game that uses the traditional controller design we have now has to work on the Revolution. If not the console is merely a bizzare offshoot gimmick console like the Virtual Boy."
I agree except that if the revolutionary aspect is good enough, then it will not matter. However, I doubt it will be good enough so I hope the revolution does not exclude classic gameplay.
Bill Aurion said: "60 FPS should be standard next-gen"
That's something I've thought about before as well. The case is much like co-op, except when co-op is implemented there is a tangible new feature. 60 frames a second is not nearly as big a selling point. 60 fps has always been possible (as F-Zero X on the N64 demonstrates). It just requires a developer with discipline who wants to acheive it. They can always chop the framerate in half and essentially double the detail so I don't expect games running at 60 fps to be much more common than they are now.
"However, these are still very meager changes...To me that is nothing compared to what could be done gameplay-wise...Sure it's prettier and you can add a few new gameplay aspects, and increase A.I., but to me that's not really worth a new generation, and it sure doesn't affect the immersion factor...I eagerly await Nintendo's view of the future..."
I think it is worth a new generation if you can realize new types of gameplay in addition to better graphics. Even the graphics alone are worth it to some extent. Improved graphics do affect immersion more than we like to admit (for fear of seeming shallow I guess).
JonLueng said: "Seeing as how you can't make a game with any more dimensions, I would think that Nintendo would have to be working on something more immersive. Imagining things like "true holographic 3D" or some new way to interact with characters on a television other than pressing buttons seem a bit hasty. I'm guessing the best they can do is take a step or two in those directions. But if not amazing enough, some people might not want to learn how to enjoy such a thing."
I don't think Nintendo is working with any kind of new visualization technology. They aren't in the "TV" business and going that route would likely be far too risky and expensive. Very likely, assuming revolution isn't a bunch of hot air, it will be a change to the controller. I'm antipating something akin to the power glove but using both hands and of course, much more modern technology. The power glove actually used three detectors, apparently, to triangulate the gloves location in space. It probably used infrared (like a remote control) which would limit it's usefulness.
If they go this route the revolution's "power glove" would use RF (like the wavebird) and might include multiple sensors (one per thumb/finger). The original powerglove measured finger movement using devices embedded in the glove. The new one would just use the RF tags on each finger/thumb to track individual finger movements (relative to the rest of your hand). I'm not sure how feasible it would be for each "revolution" to include RF triangulation hardware (it would have to accomodate multiple players; you would just have to buy new gloves for more players not new receivers).
But that's purely speculation for now.
Post by: WesDawg on February 23, 2005, 10:53:22 AM
QuoteWhere do you get this info? Seems to me that Nintendo has just made a few comments about how the industry has gotten stagnant. And a few statements about how nobody has really done anything new with hardware for quite awhile. They haven't said anything about abandoning 3D gaming. They haven't said anything about abandoning 2D gaming either (which they've done amazing things with this generation).
Yet Nintendo is ready to bury the current paradigm of 3D gaming and move on to supposedly greener pastures. We can only hope that the design of their next generation console allows the current style of 3D games to live alongside the new.
I don't even think they've specifically said anything about their next gen controller. Almost everything that's been said has just popped out of rummer mills. Woo! I think people are really jumping the gun to think that the next box must somehow plug directly into your subconcious and be controlled by penis vibrations.
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 11:02:55 AM
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 23, 2005, 11:23:52 AM
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 11:26:52 AM
Post by: g-tron3000 on February 23, 2005, 12:10:31 PM
The problem was, Nintendo dropped the ball with Sony. The Playstation used CD's and gamers and developers were attracted to that. Sony lured all of Nintendo's allies away from them, and they've never recovered. The question is, how do they get those developers back?
Sony is now the video game king for two generations. I think they're well established as the dominant force in "traditional" games, and Sony's not going to lose its 3rd party interest like Nintendo did if everyone plays by the same rules. There's nothing to trip them up like that horrible decision to stick to cartridges that I think was ultimately the N64's downfall. CD's were just inherently more "cool". FFVII's dramatic splash was enough to cement CD's superiority in people's minds. The 32/64 generation was an upheaval; the way we played games was dramatically changed, and Nintendo (although arguably the force that caused it to happen- remember the Playstation was originally a Sony/Nintendo collaboration) couldn't predict how things would play out.
However, this next generation will be easier to predict. Nintendo is right in that the only thing that will be different in the XBox2 and Playstation 3 will be the graphics... and some more mundane things like expanded online gaming (which is very important, but already available in some degree). The current generation has played itself out, and I think the new systems are coming out way too early. They won't offer any big advantage over their predecessors. I don't even think the graphics will be much better. Doom 3 is state of the art and looks amazing- and that sells, but it's not all that unfamiliar of an experience. Even the upgrades which the article described (better AI, better lighting, better physics) are neglible. Gamers aren't simulating turbulence and drag on computer generated airplanes at home. They're playing games. As cool and impressive as realism can be, it's starting to enter the realm of diminishing returns. We can largely match our imaginations now. The new systems will do much better than Doom graphically, and I don't think that such a meager improvement is worth the upgrade.
People will buy XBox2's and Playstation 3's simply because they are newer and because developers will move to the new platforms as well. Nintendo realises that, although the Gamecube can reasonably achieve whatever gameplay needs programmers and gamers may have, it will be rendered artificially obsolete on the basis of newer machines being out there. They can't ignore this new generation, as superficial and artificial as it is, but they will be stomped out of the industry by their cooler, sleeker young competitors if they play the traditional rules. Furthermore, I think gamers will get bored with the next few generations if they don't offer a distict advantage to their predecessors. I mean, even if they were largely graphical upgrades, such as the difference from the NES to the SNES, the difference was monumental compared to today. Nintendo needs their innovative iPod, and very obviously are trying to mimic the success of that device. We'll see what that means soon, I guess.
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 12:26:45 PM
"Even the upgrades which the article described (better AI, better lighting, better physics) are neglible."
Doom 3 is not all that new of an experience, but Half-Life 2 is We don't see valve rushing to port that to current consoles. The minimum spec for that is a 1.2 Ghz CPU (with 2.4 recommended). There are definitely gameplay scenarios that simply won't work on current hardware due to lack of processing power. The upgrades in Half-Life 2 (AI and physics in particular) are crucial to the experience, not negligible. If you don't have a good PC, perhaps you'll get to experience it yourself on a next-gen console. Half-Life 2 neatly defeats your entire hypothesis. It can't be properly done on current consoles and it is a new and worthwhile experience. Which is why I mentioned it in the editorial. Have you played Half-Life 2 (or even Doom 3)?
Post by: JonLeung on February 23, 2005, 12:40:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
If they go this route the revolution's "power glove" would use RF (like the wavebird) and might include multiple sensors (one per thumb/finger). The original powerglove measured finger movement using devices embedded in the glove. The new one would just use the RF tags on each finger/thumb to track individual finger movements (relative to the rest of your hand). I'm not sure how feasible it would be for each "revolution" to include RF triangulation hardware (it would have to accomodate multiple players; you would just have to buy new gloves for more players not new receivers).
But that's purely speculation for now.
My brother got, as a Christmas present from work, a PC controller meant to replace the mouse. It's a glove - or more like a skeleton of one, if gloves had skeletons - with motion sensors on it. Of course, there's also a big infrared receiver, and the glove is unfortunately not wireless. Needless to say, I still prefer the mouse.
Even if they COULD eliminate the cable and improve the reception on it, any sort of "Super Power Glove" would be a hard sell. People are too used to pushing buttons, and no gamer is going to want to wave their hands around for even short periods of time. It's tiring and awkward; people are used to pushing buttons and that's what they expect to do with every new console. One day the technology is going to allow for total immersion-type games, and then button-pushing will be a thing of the past, but the first time is going to be difficult to sell and somehow it seems unlikely that that time would be now.
I remember a rumour saying that the next console will be Nintendo's first without A or B buttons. Now should this mean that they won't use buttons at all, or that there would be other names for the buttons?
However revolutionary this new Nintendo console will be, let's hope there's still room for traditional games.
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 12:48:03 PM
I think you're going a little to far with that. If such a device were used, you wouldn't be waving your arms around necessarily. You could accomplish a lot with finger and wrist movements (more subtle things). As for who it would appeal to... I think Nintendo will continue to appeal to Nintendo fans no matter what. They have indicated themselves that they would like to appeal to a new market (not just steal customers or share them with Sony and Microsoft). This is the kind of interface that could do that.
Think of Tom Cruise using that computer in the beginning of Minority Report (the move not the game *shudders*)... sure if you design something like that PC peripheral you described it's going to fail because the PC software isn't designed to work with it. But if games and/or software are designed to use it, then it could be very effective.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 01:03:13 PM
There's a reason for that or at least it's my reason for any pessimism. Nintendo has really underdelivered on many of their recent ideas that they claimed were innovative and they made a lot of easily avoidable mistakes on the Cube. The easily avoidable mistakes were minor stuff like tiny memory cards and the lack of demo discs. Nothing too major but still stuff that any moderate fan of videogames would have spotted miles away. They were the sort of mistakes you would expect from someone like Nokia not Nintendo, the company that saved videogames and established the console model currently used today.
The underdelivered ideas are more serious since the Revolution itself seems to be based on a new idea. Nintendo waited to show Super Mario Sunshine because they were afraid someone would steal their idea. It sure sounded like a really cool idea because it would have to be in order for people to want to steal it. It turned out to be a largely uninteresting waterpack that has not been stolen by anyone because it wasn't that cool of an idea. Nintendo made a big deal about connectivity. It was going to give them an edge and would be incredibly innovative. In the end most games only used connectivity as a neat bonus for GBA owners. The only games that made heavy use of the concept were all multiplayer focused titles thus making them have very expensive hardware requirements. Pac-Man VS which received the most hype from Nintendo at their E3 show that year was multiplayer only and had so little depth that it wasn't even sold as a standalone title. Finally there's the DS which has some really unique features. However Nintendo has yet to make good use of these features. All of their DS games thus far are gimmick games that don't demonstrate the DS features as essential.
So the last three times Nintendo made a big deal about some innovative idea the result was pretty lame. Thus there's a natural fear/assumption that the pattern will repeat. If Nintendo really delivered with these concepts then I would be very optimistic about the Revoluton. But they didn't and to me that shows that they no longer know what gamers want and greatly overestimate the appeal of their own ideas.
I want Nintendo to be successful and I think they're capable of being at least a strong number two to Sony. I just don't trust them anymore to deliver on a new concept. I hope they prove me wrong and I know they can, it's just that recent history suggests they won't.
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 01:10:33 PM
However, there is some hope. Controllers are clearly not the optimal input device for all games (compare keyboard and mouse). There may be some other method of controlling games that no one else has thought of yet that could truly revolutionize the industry. Who knows, perhaps Nintendo came up with a great idea and all of this revolution talk is market speak. In other words... I'd be more optimistic If I was sure the idea behind revolution came before the idea that there needs to be a revolution.
Maybe the input device is being changed to a more keyboard and mouse like setup. You'd have some kind of thing with buttons in your left (or right) hand and some kind of glove or gryoscopic device in your right hand (that would have mouse-like functionality). Both devices would be wireless and work in either hand to accomodate lefties.
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 23, 2005, 01:14:18 PM
Wario Ware isn't a gimmick game...
"It sure sounded like a really cool idea because it would have to be in order for people to want to steal it. It turned out to be a largely uninteresting waterpack that has not been stolen by anyone because it wasn't that cool of an idea."
I am VERY sick of hearing this example, because it's really lame...The reason the idea WASN'T taken was that it was near complete when finally shown...What worries Ninty and most devs the most is showing an idea and then being beaten to the market by another dev who takes the idea and churns out a quickie before original game can be put out...
And I'm ESPECIALLY sick of hearing crap about Sunshine's water pack...I found it interesting...I found it innovative...END...
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 01:20:14 PM
However, I do agree that Wario Ware DS is mostly a gimmicky game. So was the original, however, it was unique then. On the DS the most worthwhile games are minigames (Mario 64 mini games and wario ware mini games). I want a *real* DS game that uses its features. A game like Zelda that somehow uses the touch screen.
Post by: ruby_onix on February 23, 2005, 01:33:03 PM
Quote
And lastly, the number and scope of massively multiplayer online games will likely increase significantly in the next generation, due to the increasing number of online players and the increasing prevalence and bandwidth of Internet connections.
Just a thought, is the bandwidth of the internet actually increasing? I mean, I know that more and more people are getting broadband, but is broadband getting any better? I don't think it is.
In that sense, "online" isn't going to see any improved functionality. More people, perhaps more creativity, but it's already been "maxed out" by this generation, and can't really be improved with new hardware.
Quote
Even 2D gaming, which has been around for more than thirty years, continues to attract the attention of both developers and gamers. Yet Nintendo is ready to bury the current paradigm of 3D gaming and move on to supposedly greener pastures. We can only hope that the design of their next generation console allows the current style of 3D games to live alongside the new. There is still much fun due gamers from mere evolutions of current genres and many classic franchises that have not yet made the leap to 3D.
Bah! 2D games don't make a "leap" to 3D. For the most part, they're just 2D franchise names, that get whored out to help sell new (hit or miss) 3D franchises.
The number of names and logos remaining in the old 2D bank that can be slapped on things doesn't really say how much life there is in the 3D world. However, I do agree that there still seems to be a lot of potential for new games and innovation in the 3D world. Just because we haven't seen it, it doesn't mean it can't be done.
Although I think we really need to keep in mind here that Nintendo has been arguably the biggest force in the industry towards keeping 2D alive, even though they were the ones to "really" usher in the age of 3D. I say arguably because some people tend to argue that Sony might currently be a bigger force, but that's just because Sony is a force in this generation. They've also far-and-away been the absolute biggest force pushing for the demise of 2D.
Either way, Nintendo has been a force for 2D, with their home consoles, with their own franchises, with the GBA, with the DS, you name it. If they usher in an age beyond what we call "3D", will they really abandon the past? I'm leaning towards "hell no", but you never know what the future might hold. Especially when Nintendo won't tell anyone squat about what they're thinking.
Whatever happens, revolution or gimmick, success or failure, Nintendo is dead-set in their position, and will run headlong into it.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 23, 2005, 01:35:03 PM
Very well said. Changing because of an idea is more likely to create something worthwhile then deciding to change and then thinking up an idea. I agree that Nintendo will probably deliver if they're not just changing for the sake of change which is what I'm afraid they're doing.
A keyboard/mouse setup isn't that bad of an idea. The only thing that a keyboard is really missing is an analog stick and a design more streamlined for games. If you took a keyboard and:
-removed keys not needed for gaming like the windows key, scroll lock, or symbols like ~
-seperated the keys into three sections based an typing (for messages and such), action functions, and admin functions (like pause, start, select)
-arranged the arrows into a circle so that there were easy to reach diagonal keys
-added a couple of analog sticks and analog buttons
-added a knob for old school paddle games and for steering wheel functionality
-kept the mouse with three or four buttons and a scrollwheel
-had expansion slots on the sides to add extra stuff like say piano keys for a rhythm game
you would have something that would be really flexible and would work reasonably well with most games. Ergonomics would be a big issue though as well as cost and the fact that people can't really hold it in their hands. If Nintendo is thinking in those sort of terms I'm less worried.
Post by: ruby_onix on February 23, 2005, 01:53:43 PM
What Nintendo needs to do is make those Minority Report gloves. Then your Revolution is suddenly backwards compatible with every input device ever created. You want to use a keyboard and mouse? Sure! Just grab them. Don't plug them in. Just use them. You wanna play a Cube game? Grab a Cube controller. You think the game works better with a SNES or NES controller? Those work too.
That'd be awesome. But of course, I just have to toss that idea out of my head now, because I have no idea what Nintendo will do, and I don't want to set myself up for a major letdown.
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 01:57:20 PM
"Bah! 2D games don't make a "leap" to 3D. For the most part, they're just 2D franchise names, that get whored out to help sell new (hit or miss) 3D franchises."
That's what people who don't like 3D games much like to say. And it's true in many cases. However, completely false in many other cases. Metroid Prime, for example, has a lot in common with 2D metroids. It has a similar weapon/energy system, similar upgrade system and similar basic design (with exploration and backtracking). I won't bother citing the details of other examples, but I think it's clear to most people that Mario 64 and Zelda OoT borrow quite a bit from their 2D brethren. Other good examples are: Metal Gear Solid and Pricnce of Persia. Excitebike 64 is an example of a game that has very little in common with the original, but still turned out quite well (of course it does still feature the redlining from the classic and the track editor). You sound a bit jaded to me (probably thanks to the castlevania, mega man, contra, rygar, ninja gaiden etc. transitions to 3D).
"Either way, Nintendo has been a force for 2D, with their home consoles, with their own franchises, with the GBA, with the DS, you name it. If they usher in an age beyond what we call "3D", will they really abandon the past? I'm leaning towards "hell no", but you never know what the future might hold. Especially when Nintendo won't tell anyone squat about what they're thinking."
Not a bad point. However, the controller may be designed in such a way as to force the past to be abandoned (at least on that console).
Ian Sane: that device you described is far too complex for Nintendo's style. You're talking about the company that refused to put a second Z button on the left side of their GameCube controller (which would have made PS2 ports so much easier). It would be good if such a device could have an analog stick on it... but I could see them doing something like that and leaving it out. However, your hand could easily function as an analog stick with a glove on it. There would be one censor on your wrist that would only move if you moved your arm. For analog functionality your arm movements would be ignored. Instead, it would measure the movement if, say, your index finger with respect to your wrist (so essentially you would just pivot your hand around on your wrist just as you pivot the analog stick around in its socket to move a character). Imagine how much more intuitive that would be for people who have not yet adjusted to analog sticks (and there are many).
You know, I like the sound of this idea more and more as I think about it. Two gloves sounds bad, but one glove with an auxillary device in the other hand could work excellently.
ruby, that could work, but it would be more difficult than it sounds. THat would require extraordinary precision and you would need standardized dummy devices (or else you'd have to calibrate any device you need to use). It would work in theory, but I think it would be too complex. It's cool though, because such a glove on one hand could function as an analog stick or as a mouse.
Post by: NWR_Lindy on February 23, 2005, 03:08:43 PM
I'm concerned though. I'd much rather have a console that's easy to port third-party games to than have some weird proprietary gizmo.
silks
Post by: JonLeung on February 23, 2005, 04:26:57 PM
Quote
Originally posted by: Rize
Think of Tom Cruise using that computer in the beginning of Minority Report (the move not the game *shudders*)... sure if you design something like that PC peripheral you described it's going to fail because the PC software isn't designed to work with it. But if games and/or software are designed to use it, then it could be very effective.
The Minority Report scene you mentioned is kind of like how the PC glove I have works...(sometimes...) I didn't mean that people would be moving their arms about - but you try holding your hand up for an hour.
I'm sure if games were made SPECIFICALLY for it, you wouldn't get as fatigued as quickly 'cause you're having fun...like those people who like the EyeToy and DDR and etc. where they're physically moving about. I guess we're jumping the gun with many assumptions here, but if this is what Revolution is about, then if I'm not fearing for Nintendo, I'm fearing for conventional games.
Of course, chucking all assumptions aside, we're left with, well, nothing.
May can't get here soon enough.
Well, maybe, but you know, there's definitely some anticipation.
Post by: Rize on February 23, 2005, 04:45:28 PM
Post by: Nephilim on February 23, 2005, 05:27:12 PM
Microsoft is working towards improving Live with Xbox 2/360....they will be way beyond what sega did with dreamcast and what sony tried to do.. Klobb explained kinda in his newest ign rant.
your thinking of the internet as in websites, were the internet is data and there are so many ways yet to exploit that data
plus u really think places like japan with 3meg download a secound really wanna spend there time playing online games like .hack or gunbound which barely are above 56k, when they can use there net to fullest?
Post by: Dasmos on February 24, 2005, 02:04:58 AM
Quote
Originally posted by: Silks
I think the most promising thing I've heard about Revolution is the rumor that Camelot has a Golden Sun title in the works for the console. If this is true, Nintendo can't be doing something too far off the map hardware-wise because their controller will have to be useful for RPGs...even if it's something that emulates a mouse pointer interface.
I'm concerned though. I'd much rather have a console that's easy to port third-party games to than have some weird proprietary gizmo.
silks
I thought they just had a RPG in the works.......people just assume it is Golden Sun....but then what's the problem for hoping for the best possible outcome!!
Post by: Bill Aurion on February 24, 2005, 02:11:40 AM
Post by: g-tron3000 on February 24, 2005, 06:20:44 AM
Perhaps... but I'm doubtful that the advancements are as integral as you suggest. Ultimately, I can't answer that question since I haven't played either. Hardcore gamers and techies get overly excited over every litte advancement, citing things as "more realistic water dynamics!!!" as creating a whole new game experience.
There's always be descrepancies between gaming platforms in a generation. Furthermore, computer games and arcade games have traditionally been much more powerful than their console counterparts until just recently. Half-Life and Doom are just taking up the tradition again. But to think that they're really the only PC games that are so tricky to port should show you that we're reaching a technological/creative plateau - or at least matching our imaginations with the technology. Look at the differences between the three major platforms now. There aren't many (with the exception of good online support, which I think will change gameplay more than it is right now). Programmers comment on how easy it is to port games between all three machines. Arcade games can't look and behave all that much better than their little console brothers. That's unprecedented! And I think that's indicative the technology maturing, being able to do almost anything we want it to.
Everything that was mentioned in the article can already be done... to a smaller degree. But the improvements that can be made in these areas are not as significant as the jumps from Atari to NES to SNES to N64 to Gamecube. I think that graphics, AI, and physics will always be improved, but that's obvious. I don't think any of that will enhance gameplay all that much in the near future. A doubled or tripled polygon count isn't a fraction as significant as the jump from 8 - 16 bit color. Back then, that was lightyears difference. At a certain point, you just get diminishing returns. I simply think that the current generation's lifespan should have been extended until those improvements were more significant.
Now on the "revolution" end, I saw two things that got me more excited for gaming's future.
One was an article (I think it was on Gamespot) talking about new ways to interact with games. One of the coolest ideas I had ever heard was about taking a portable machine, attaching a camera to the back, giving it motion tracking capabilities, and turning that portable into a "window into a new world". It would project CG objects into your real environment. So, you and a buddy could both have one of these devices, jump around your living room, and see CG zombies enhabiting the space between you through these devices! Ninendo won't be releasing yet ANOTHER handheld yet but...
I saw this incredible video demonstration. After hearing about that new Nintendo patent, it seemed to fit together somehow. A few men set up a table with random objects on it (a toy castle, legos, etc) a camera, and a monitor. A live video feed was being fed into the monitor with the room that they were standing in, but inside this room, on the table, were CG created elements. There was a minature CG car that was able interact with the objects on the table. It seemed to drive over the legos, and even be pushed back the force of a mechanized door on the toy castle. Helicopters could wander the space. One of the men demonstrated how he could hold a virtual gun, and twirl it around like a cowboy. It was kind of like a really elaborate Eye-Toy.
Now, I don't know where this video came from. Someone said that it was indeed from Nintendo, although I have very serious doubts. But it made me wonder... could Nintendo be working on a similar technology? That cryptic "Touching is good, but...." statement seemed to strangely fit.
Post by: g-tron3000 on February 24, 2005, 06:29:04 AM
http://sonix.sdv.fr:8080/ramgen/arte/tracks/20040603/immersion.rm
As I said, I'm doubtful this is really from Nintendo as the place that I found this said it was. Perhaps someone who can speak French can translate the video. But regardless, I think this shows what a revolution REALLY could look like.
Post by: KDR_11k on February 24, 2005, 07:21:05 AM
Post by: Rize on February 24, 2005, 08:41:27 AM
I suggest you play Half-Life 2 before we continue down this road. The physics engine is an integeral part of the gameplay, not just graphical dressing. The AI is not such a noticable thing, but it is good.
". But to think that they're really the only PC games that are so tricky to port should show you that we're reaching a technological/creative plateau -"
Every game from now on will be tricky to port (that is every game that uses their engines for example). You're trying to say that current hardware is good enough to realize all game designs. It's clearly not.
"Arcade games can't look and behave all that much better than their little console brothers."
The reason for this is software related not hardware. Arcade games don't generate enough money to pay for the massive costs associated with developing state of the art graphics. The hardware for arcade machines could easily be designed to be more expensive than console hardware, but htere is no point.
I have to run, I'll address the rest later
Post by: Rize on February 24, 2005, 09:29:18 AM
Who said anything about double or triple? From the N64 to GameCube the polygon count increased by 100 to 1000 times depending on the software. If you think the next gen consoles will merely double or triple polygon count then you're going to be in for a surprise. It won't be quite as dramatic a jump as fromt he N64 to the Cube (which was the result of adding transform hardware), but it will still be large. I'm expecting real-time polygon counts to go from 10 million per second max to at least 100 million per second max.
As for that video demonstration, I was not impressed at all. That's hardly any different than a remote control car except it's stuck in your computer monitor which is playing footage of the environment around you. In other words, the game "world" would not be in control of the designer, just the game objects. It would make for very poor video game technology imo (it's not unlike volumetric 3D which would also make for poor game technology: see my old editorial on Volumetric 3D).
I'd be willing to bet lots of money that this technology has nothing to do with Nintendo and that Nintendo's revolution is nothing like this technology. I stand by my belief that revolution's special feature will be some kind of modification to the controller (if not a new kind of controller all together). The game's themselves will continue to be traditional 3D (although augmented by whatever new control technology Nintendo has come up with).
Post by: g-tron3000 on February 24, 2005, 09:51:42 AM
I'm not saying the hardware we're making isn't improving, but that we really can't take enough advantage of it to warrant throwing our old systems into the garbage... THAT IS unless they take advantage of some new way of interaction such as that video. It's technology that is somewhat accessible:it kind of is a glorified version of Eye Toy, and apparently the technology has been around since the early 90's. The problem is, until now, computing power hasn't been strong enough to really give it commercial appeal. Maybe it isn't quite yet, but wouldn't it be something if it was?
I mean, Half Life and Doom may be impressive, but do they really have a "Holy S***!!!" factor?
I did research on that video since the last post. Apparently the technology is called either "Total Immersion" or "Augmented Reality". The video seems to be from a company called "T-Immersion". (http://www.t-immersion.com). There's a community of people trying to promote this technology at http://www.augmented-reality.org/. In 2000, there was some sort of conference (I believe it was in Brazil??) surrounding this technology and a Nintendo rep was attending. Sony supposedly has some interest in this technology too. So the gaming companies are definately looking at it.
The possibilities sound really interesting. I also ran across a story of a city-wide Augmented Reality version of Pac Man, where several players wandered city streets collecting CG power pellets. I'm sure Augmented Reality is not the only way to improve gaming experience. I'm still disappointed that Virtual Reality seems to be somewhat dead right now. I always thought it was a good idea, but needed the processing power to back it up. The Virtual Boy was too limited to make good use of it, and I'm afraid it's failure convinced many people that Virtual Reality didn't make for good games. But other unheard of ideas have to be sprouting, too. The question would be, though, how versatile is any new format and how many possibilities will excite developers. I'm somewhat skeptical that the DS is as versatile as it needs to be.
Whether or not this technology is yet feasible for use in consumer electronics, I don't know. But if it really is an extension of the Eye Toy idea, then why wouldn't the next generation be as much of an improvement as the N64 to the Gamecube? And doesn't that sound like it's putting the advanced computing power to better use? Traditional gaming won't die, and it will be improved upon, but I fully understand Nintendo's wanting to be an innovator. There's so much more possibility than we're exploring right now. It's all a risk. It could make or break Nintendo. But if they're being as daring as they say they are, then I'm glad someone is. I just think the video game industry is just being limited by its imagination right now.
Look up "Total Immersion", "Augmented Reality" and for more interesting talk "Augmented Reality +Nintendo". There's talk.
Post by: Rize on February 24, 2005, 10:16:57 AM
As I've already stated, the technology demonstrated in that video would be horrible for gameplay. It would be like having a remote controlled car, except you can't watch the real car you have to watch it on a TV. And you can't take it outside because it can only play in the area captured by the camera. It would be a very poor technology for video games. It's more of a virtual toy system than a video game. So not only will I not admit it, but I will contradict it. That device could not be used effectively for compelling video games in my opinion. Replacing the vibrant imagintive worlds of video games with static shots of the actual environment is not revolutionary, it's severely limiting.
"Sony supposedly has some interest in this technology too. So the gaming companies are definately looking at it. "
I'm sure they are. And I'm sure they are shaking their heads saying to themselves... this will not make a good video game. It would make a good gimmick (like eye toy) that you could attach to a console, but as a stand alone product, it could not be the focus of a new console (unless that console wanted to fail).
Stop and think for a second. What kind of games could be made with such a system? Who wants to play pac-man in a real city? It's a gimmick. There's very little in the way of really good game design that could be made with this system without huge compromises to what we think of as a video game. The problem is that every game would have to take place in the real world and that would quite simply suck.
VR is going to require a lot more than graphics technology. The headsite doesn't make VR. Total immersion does. Ideal VR would tap directly into your brain and substitute real sensory information with imaginary information. The second best thing would accomplish the same thing with external devices, but the the problem of transferring sensory information to a person's skin, nose and tongue are completely unsolved right now. Movement is also a problem because you can only move your head and arms without going anywhere (i.e. you move your legs and you start walking around while playing games which is a problem). Real VR is still quite far from a consumer application.
Post by: Ian Sane on February 24, 2005, 10:37:46 AM
That doesn't make any sense. A new way of interaction would encourage us not to throw out our old systems because that style of gameplay would be completely gone. If anything a mere technological improvement would provide better cause to "throw old systems into the garbage." You don't get rid of your piano when you get a guitar.
The idea in that video and many of the more extreme ideas that some people are throwing around in my opinion don't even look like they're the same thing as videogames. They look like some new activity that is similar to gaming. It's like comparing pro wrestling to amateur wrestling. Sure both require a lot of physical activity and look similar at first glance and require similar skills but they're still totally different activities. You would never classify them as the same thing. This is the same sort of situation. Virtual toys and videogames are not the same thing.
Post by: vudu on February 24, 2005, 10:54:11 AM
QuoteDoom 3 doesn't. At least not on my graphics card. But I was truely impressed by Half-Life 2.
I mean, Half Life and Doom may be impressive, but do they really have a "Holy S***!!!" factor?
EDIT: With all this talk about Half-Life 2 not being possible on current consoles, wasn't there something going around about a port for Xbox in the works? Did that get canned or something?
Post by: Rize on February 24, 2005, 01:02:23 PM
Post by: g-tron3000 on February 24, 2005, 03:22:44 PM
I think you're limiting your imagination to what was shown on the demonstration. As I've already said, this was not a Nintendo demonstration, but rather from a company that does not specialize in gameplay. Whatever system they have set up is not optimized for games. The way you package the technology is as important as the technology itself. I mean, there really was a fine line between an NES and a PC back when. PC's had more power than an NES, but the NES was built with gaming in mind. Its video card was optized for graphics, its media was optimized for transportation and some wear and tear, and its input devices were simplified for ease of use. PC's could always make more powerful games, but that wasn't alwaya the point. I'm sure if Nintendo were to use such technology as this Augmented Reality, they would adapt it in a similar fashion.
Your criticism of a static screen is probably true. That probably would make for awkward gaming. But this technology isn't limited to static screens. We've already mentioned the potential for portable devices to be used as "windows" on a virtual world. I think that is more practical- and I'll bet we see that in some point in time, whether it's from Nintendo or not.
What amazed me was that the technology was out there to have cg worlds interact with the real ones in such a way. I didn't realise that motion tracking was nearly as sophisticated as that. I was blown away by the fact that the car could be affected by the force of the actual-world mechanized door, for instance. I know you don't think so, but I think this could have some interesting applications in the hands of creative people. To say that this would be limited to something of a "remote control car" is far from true. Remote control cars can't shoot, transform (in a drastic way, at least), fly, or cast magic spells. They can't disappear, reappear, or run off a table without being damaged. Don't forget about actually introducing characters. But who knows. My point was never about this specific technology anyway, but rather that new ways to interact with games are out there other than a simple gyroscopic controller.
My other point, though, which has not been taken up yet, is that no matter whether computational horsepower is enough for gamers or not, it is not a strategy that Nintendo can survive by right now. Chances are that Nintendo could not best Sony and Microsoft in the horsepower game. For one thing, Sony has the Cell chip which seems to be the strongest thing out there right now. Nintendo could incorporate this as well, I guess, but seeing that Sony was one of the developers, I have a feeling the deck is stacked against them. If Nintendo simply matched the power of their competitors' systems, that would not be enough to lure back developers and gamers. That would simply re-create the position they were in for the Gamecube.
Obviously this is Nintendo's philosophy for the system- they've said so themselves. They said that their new system will be more powerful than the Gamecube, but they have purposely downplayed horsepower. Instead, they have said that they are not trying to compete with Sony and Microsoft any longer, but rather expand the market in a new direction. And I expect that they will try to do just that. They need to pull off a "Holy S***!!!" moment to keep from slipping further.
Post by: Rize on February 24, 2005, 08:35:03 PM
Anyway, Nintendo could use some help, but I'm sure they could be effective without any revolutions except maybe a revolution in their marketing strategy. I'm not really concerned about Nintendo being on top of things though. As long as they're profitable and don't release severely underpowered consoles I'm happy.
Post by: g-tron3000 on February 25, 2005, 06:07:27 AM
You're forgetting that Nintendo has publicly stated that they're not going to be trying to compete with Microsoft and Sony. In fact their whole "revolution" philosophy suggests that they're not trying to simply make "video games as we know them". That's been my criticism of horsepower all along. To say "this new technology can't do this and this and this and this" is beside the point. The question really is, "what COULD it do?"
As for taking away the possibility of level design from game designers: To judge it by current concepts of level design and the conventions of competition in current games would be beside the point. One way, for instance, that designers could influence the function and control the players conflict would be to include props along with the game itself. Perhaps they are things you wear, or things you use. What if you had to guide Lemmings like creatures through a lego-like world, which you were always rebuilding to lead them in the right direction? People still play Monopoly and Scrabble despite the lack of level design. Something really revolutionary would change the rules, or at least invent new ones, just like video games did in the first place, and like 3D did when that became a feasible technology. Traditional video games will probably always be there, but that doesn't mean there's not another model out there.
Regardless, I am just as skeptical that this is the technology that Nintendo will be incorporating. But, I do find it has an uncanny resemblance to the clues that are out there. Nintendo wants to parallel the current model of video games without directly competing with it. Nintendo announced the absence of A & B buttons. (Who cares what they're named anyway? But what if there were *no* buttons?) Nintendo is rumored to be using gyroscopic controllers. Nintendo is rumored to be attaching an Eye Toy like device. Even if these rumors ended up being completely false, I found it strange that they don't seem to make a cohesive picture- until I saw that video.
Fortunately, whatever Nintendo has up its sleeve, it probably is going to be influenced by Shigeru Miyamoto like their hardware has been in the past.
>>>Anyway, Nintendo could use some help, but I'm sure they could be effective without any revolutions except maybe a revolution in their marketing strategy.<<<
As I said, I really doubt that is possible right now. Marketing happens after the release or just slightly before it. What Nintendo needs off the bat is developers' interest. If they don't have enough games at the release, they'll be hurting more than before. And seeing how "uncool" Nintendo is becoming (I love them, myself), I don't think they could muster that support. And if they don't have the games at release, I doubt any amount of marketing will help...
...unless they really deliver on this "revolution" thing.
Post by: g-tron3000 on February 25, 2005, 06:30:48 AM
http://www.gamespy.com/articles/584/584744p1.html
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on February 25, 2005, 08:21:15 AM
Quote
All of their DS games thus far are gimmick games that don't demonstrate the DS features as essential.
Quote
However, I do agree that Wario Ware DS is mostly a gimmicky game. So was the original, however, it was unique then. On the DS the most worthwhile games are minigames (Mario 64 mini games and wario ware mini games). I want a *real* DS game that uses its features. A game like Zelda that somehow uses the touch screen.
Have you guys played "Another Code" yet?
Post by: xts3 on February 25, 2005, 01:25:31 PM
Quote
. Yet Nintendo is ready to bury the current paradigm of 3D gaming and move on to supposedly greener pastures.
This is the most stupid thing I have ever heard you say. What is the DS? What is the gamecube? I think what they are trying to do is broaden video game appeal by making it easier / more fun to control for the vast populace that doesn't play games. It remains to be seen if revolution is a gimmick or not. Nintendo has had about a 50/50 track record of good and bad ideas. To be honest I'm burnt out on most games. How you can go on and speak about gameplay innovation this generation is pretty bad. The level of interactivity has not budged since the PS1 and N64 era. It's slowly evolving at a snails pace. Good games are about quality interactivity with 'movie' entertainment as a bonus. A game must have 1) an appealing theme 2) Good art 3) at least par gameplay in order to succeed if you look at all the great games ever released most of them have all those three things.
Post by: Rize on February 25, 2005, 11:27:07 PM
Including props would not help the situation. It would only be interesting and compelling if they were very expensive props. Cheap props would not do.
The lemmings idea, at least shows that you're putting some thought into this. Fun game designs could be made, however, I still think it's just way too far out there. The tech isn't ripe enough. THIS (unlike the DS) might have made a good third pillar. A true third pillar. But it's not a replacement or successor to Nintendo's console. Most of their franchises would be almost completely useless in this context. Mario could jump around your room and that would work, but Zelda would be pretty much useless (for example). Since the game has to remain on the TV, I think it'd be a much better system if you used gloves as I mentioned to manipulate virtual things rather than your real hands to manipulate real things that affected the virtual agents on the tv (you'd be looking at your environment while things on the tv changed in that case which is not good). It's just got way too many problems to be revolution.
When Nintendo says they don't want to compete with MS and Sony, they mean they don't want to try and take over the world and be the adult game company. They want to remain an all ages company and remain profitable without great risk. They've also said that we should look at the DS as an example of the kind of change revolution would be. In other words, it's going to be an interface change (controller) not something crazy like VR or this device.
By the way, when/where did Nintendo anounce the lack of A and B buttons? Anyway, this tech would still benefit from a controller. Nintendo is already using gyroscopes (kirby tilt and tumble, ware ware with the gryoscope in the GBA cart). Unless they come up with some device that makes it obsolete (a power glove type thing) they'll probably include a gyroscope on their next controller.
I'll mail you a 100 bucks if Nintendo uses the tech on that video.
That gamespy article just bolsters my case. Nintendo can revolutionize things with a simple change in the packed in controller (sure anyone can release eye toy, but to pack something weird like that in as the standard controller makes it really count). They're not going to go out on a limb and do something crazy. Nintendo doesn't have to take that kind of risk.
"But the crazy part is, this isn't some sort of weird hypothetical future scenario. The technology is pretty much here. This is being worked on right now. By the end of the next console generation, per-pixel distance-measurement cameras will be available at a consumer price point."
The funny thing is, I think this is way overboard. It's not even necessary. It's hardly useful to track full body movement because you're stuck in your room (so you can't go walk somewhere in the game world). The best thing we can have right now is something new to do with our hands. Even head tracking is useless without VR goggles (becuase you turn your head away from the screen otherwise).
xts3: hindsight is 20/20. The N64 format had advantages for games: it had much faster transfer rates (no loading times). We're stuck with them now, but at the time choosing a medium that would add big loading times to games didn't seem like a good idea, especially when the only thing that storage was needed for was FMV which isn't even strictly part of the game. The reason CD won is because it's very, very cheap. Carts are too expensive for their size.
As for nintendo burying the current paradigm... yeah that was more of a flashy sentence than a well thought out one. Nintendo doesn't want to bury anything. In all honesty, I'll be surprised if they do anything more than add a gyro and a touch screen to the revolution controller. If they go as far as to take the glove route, they won't truly have buried anything. Now if they go the g-tron route and use the tech in that video, they will have completely buried the past for all intents and purposes (which is why I know they won't do it).
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on February 26, 2005, 05:11:20 AM
Quote
Revolution will be, at the most, traditional video games with a radically different controller. This would not be a revolution, it would be suicide
I disagree, we've seen games from Nintendo begin to use different controllers rather than the tradtional ones, heck look at Sony's eye toy, these are radically new ways to play games that haven't been utitlized before, and yet they haven't chased away the fan base for games, only made them larger.
I agree that nintendo is going to try and put in new ways to play games by altering the control features, more interactivity with future games, personally I think this is the right way, games are starting to stagnate, yes there is still some room left in the current mold, but we've already reached the point of Diminishing returns on more processing power and too many games are just clones of earlier games (i'm not talking about franchises with updates in gameplay, I mean games which are Exactly the same game with different characters).
Post by: Rize on February 26, 2005, 08:56:06 AM
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on February 26, 2005, 09:16:45 AM
Post by: Jonnyboy117 on March 02, 2005, 04:40:20 AM
1. They mean the market is becoming resistant to the current style of games. Sony and Microsoft's success defy this theory.
2. They mean creativity in games is becoming stagnant as new technology offers little to expand gameplay. David's editorial defies this theory.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 02, 2005, 05:06:01 AM
And a lot of you need to read this, thanks...
Sony and Microsoft aren't going in the "wrong" direction, just the same direction. Nintendo's goal is to avoid taking products down the same traveled road year after year. New, innovative gaming inspires consumers -- as we're seeing with the success of Nintendo DS. We've been creating exciting, new video games and systems for a long time, and we now see a big opportunity to revitalize the industry with some much-needed creativity and fun.~Perrin Kaplan
Post by: mantidor on March 02, 2005, 05:34:50 AM
"We don't feel the market is broken -- just limited. Nintendo's goal is to increase the total number of game players in addition to serving current players. I know you're a fan of the iPod, a device that changed the music world while everyone else was focused on trying to create the perfect CD player. Likewise, Nintendo is paving a new road with new adventures on the horizon rather than accelerating down the same old path."
Post by: Ian Sane on March 02, 2005, 07:02:23 AM
The one that I feel has the better games. And the truth is a traditional design is going to have more games I like. That's personal preference of course. The DS for example is a lot more interactive but it has no games at all currently available that I'm even remotely interested in. It doesn't matter if it has a touchscreen the games that use it don't interest me and there's no killer "traditional" game for it right now.
Nintendo constantly talks as if the Revolution is for a different target market that MS and Sony don't yet have. Attracting non-gamers is brought up a lot. The problem is I'm not a non-gamer and I'm not interested in junk that non-gamers would be interested in. So maybe Nintendo can go non-traditional and even make a lot of money doing it. The problem is they'll be successful with a product that doesn't appeal to me. And since Nintendo is my favourite developer then pretty much no one will make games that appeal to me. I want Nintendo to be successful so that they can make games I like but I don't care if they're successful if they do so by making games I'm not interested in.
In a way if Nintendo goes too weird they're kind of selling out because they would be abandoning their current fans for a different group of people that may include some of their fans but not all of them. I want them to innovate but within the style of gaming I like. A complete overhaul can be innovative but not necessarily enjoyable. It's like how I want a rock band to be creative within the rock genre but I don't want them to become a rap band. I want something that's creative and good not just creative.
It seems kind of premature to declare the DS as having a successful formula yet when the PSP hasn't even launched. Wow Nintendo is kicking ass against no competition. Big deal. The DS formula may fail against more traditional competition so using that same philosophy for the Revolution isn't necessarily a good idea.
I see the direction Nintendo is going in as a huge gamble and one that even if it pays off is going to alienate a lot of fans.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 02, 2005, 08:09:00 AM
Oh, so you've played the Revolution? I KNOW FOR A FACT THAT I WILL LIKE TRADITIONAL GAMES MORE! I never thought I'd like gaming with a touch screen...The DS changed my mind...I thought Jungle Beat would turn out crap since you used bongo drums...I was proven wrong...Stop being so stubborn telling yourself that you won't like it just because it's something different...
Attracting non-gamers is brought up a lot. The problem is I'm not a non-gamer and I'm not interested in junk that non-gamers would be interested in. So maybe Nintendo can go non-traditional and even make a lot of money doing it. The problem is they'll be successful with a product that doesn't appeal to me.
Um, no...This logic is ridiculous, as you have already decided you won't like the Revolution...And Ninty has NEVER said they are going to concentrate on potential gamers alone, please stop spinning Ninty's quotes and philosophies around so it fits your argument...
It seems kind of premature to declare the DS as having a successful formula yet when the PSP hasn't even launched.
Um, since when has success strictly meant "winning in sales"? The fact that the DS is doing so well with a new formula and appealing to old and new gamers alike is the REAL success...Ninty has PROVEN that the tried and true traditional method of gaming is NOT the only means of doing so and that people are willing to give new ways a try...
I see the direction Nintendo is going in as a huge gamble and one that even if it pays off is going to alienate a lot of fans.
Just like the DS was a gamble, noone bought that piece of...Wait a second...
So basically your angst-filled argument is built around you being a stick-in-the-mud that isn't willing to try new things...And this coming from someone who has ALSO complained about Ninty not risking enough and creating new franchises...Ironic or what?
Post by: Ian Sane on March 02, 2005, 08:43:36 AM
And how have they proven this? They have released only two first party DS games. One is a port. The second is Warioware which is good by widely considered inferior to the GBA Wariowares which were made on a traditional gaming system. Nintendo hasn't released a game yet that really sells the DS concept. So to me that suggests that they have not yet proven anything. The current DS userbase consists of hardcore Nintendo fans, early adopters, and people who consider the DS to be the next Gameboy. It's just too early to say "yeah the new concepts of the DS were really well accepted." When Nintendo releases something that truly demonstrates the DS concept as more than just a gimmick and it is really well accepted then we can say that the DS model was a success.
And it's not just me not liking something because it's different. It's the fact that I don't want something that's completely different. I like traditional games and I want to play them. I might like playing "new style" games too but I won't like playing JUST "new style" games. So if the Revolution is too wacky to play traditional games then it doesn't matter how cool the new ideas are. It's still restrictive. It's denying me something I used to have. So given the choice I would keep what I have already. It doesn't help that some of new concepts that Nintendo has been introducing like the DS and like connectivity are not that great. I don't prefer those concepts to the traditional model. If I don't like Nintendo's most recent new concepts why would I assume that I'll like their next one?
"And this coming from someone who has ALSO complained about Ninty not risking enough and creating new franchises...Ironic or what?"
I like new ideas and innovation and creativity. I want Nintendo to make new franchises and experiment in genres they haven't really worked with. I don't like change for the sake of change. I don't like completely abandoning old ideas. I don't like complete overhauls. Like I said before I want a rock band that experiments and is creative as a rock band. I don't want a rock band that turns into a rap band. There's big difference between Nintendo making a new franchise and Nintendo completely changing their whole design process for making games. Plus they AREN'T creating new franchises. Most of the announced DS games are existing franchises with touchscreen functionality thrown in. Warioware Touched for example is nothing new. It's just Warioware... with a touchscreen.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 02, 2005, 10:09:24 AM
Think about it this way. If you know Nintendo is able to try out a completely different way to play games... but they stick with the old one, same as everybody else... then aren't they denying you the option of playing the new kind of games?
I like your rock and rap analogy. But what if there ARE no rap bands? What if every single band is rock? Wouldn't it be better for everybody if one of them switched to rap?
"And how have they proven this? They have released only two first party DS games. One is a port. The second is Warioware which is good by widely considered inferior to the GBA Wariowares which were made on a traditional gaming system."
True, they haven't proven it's better yet... but they have proven it's possible and can in fact be enjoyable. The potential is there... that can't be denied.
They've also proven something else. Even with the DS, they can still make ports and traditional games... which bodes well for the Revolution being able to play traditional games as well.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 02, 2005, 10:45:15 AM
Oh no doubt. I was very interested in the DS when it was first revealed. I've just soured on it because Nintendo hasn't made use of the vast potential it has.
"Ian, you talk so much about options... Nintendo's giving you the option. They're trying something new. If you really want traditional games after seeing Nintendo's option, then there's always Sony's and Microsoft's consoles out there for you to buy instead."
Well that's a pretty sh!tty business strategy by Nintendo then. I mean you can use that logic about online gaming too or third party games or genre gaps. "Buy the competition" is a cop out. And personally I don't like that option. I could take that option now if I wanted to. I have the money. I can afford to buy a PS2 and Xbox and get everything. But I don't. Partially because the insane amount of time required to get the most out of three consoles and partially because even though Nintendo can be restrictive I still currently like them more than Sony or MS. I don't just want online games for example I want Nintendo online games like Mario Kart.
So let's say Nintendo makes the weirdest system ever in the Revolution. I don't like what it is but I can just buy a PS3 right? Well that's not good enough. I like quite a lot of PS1/2 games but my favourite games are made by Nintendo. If they didn't exist I probably wouldn't have enough interest in games to buy a whole console. So if instead of just not existing anymore they change in such a drastic way that they no longer makes the types of games I love anymore. To me that's the same as Nintendo no longer existing. The problem is that if Nintendo completely changes into something else their is no other option. Sony and MS are replacable but Nintendo is not.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 02, 2005, 10:56:18 AM
Second, stop acting as if the Japanese market doesn't exist...Let's look at these Famitsu scores for DS games out in Japan and coming soon to the U.S...
Pac Pix - 33/40
Yoshi Touch and Go - 35/40
Another Code - 35/40
Meteos - 38/40
Noone's used the DS' potential eh? (And Wario Ware is NOT the same game with added touch screen controls...Each of the minigames is BUILT around touch screen use...Perhaps you should play it sometime, as it really seems you haven't)
Third, PLEASE stop acting like the Revolution will make it so traditional games can't be made...You've already pointed out Super Mario 64 DS, so while you were arguing about the "lack of innovation" on the DS you also completely forgot that it damages your "oh noes the Revolution can only play gimmick games" argument...The DS plays traditional games, with the touch screen added at the developer's will, so why couldn't the Revolution be formulated around that very aspect?
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 02, 2005, 11:27:50 AM
What if they make new types of games you love? How do you know if you'll like them or not? How can you just decide you won't like them beforehand? Remember, this is supposed to be something no other game company has done before. I mean I thought Metroid going 3D would be horrible but I actually like Prime the most out of the Metroid series... If Nintendo didn't take risks, games like Prime wouldn't exist. Sure there are the VirtualBoyesque duds, but do you seriously think the industry would be better off without analog sticks, for example?
How about saving your worrying until we have some idea of what the Revolution actually does? Even if the Rev turns out to be total crap, Nintendo will still be able to recover, just like they recovered from the VirtualBoy. They've got a lot of money, you know. At this point you're just letting paranoia and cynicism twist your panties into a bunch.
If you want traditional Nintendo gaming so much, I'm sure they'll accomodate you. They're notorious for providing traditional gaming (some would say a bit too notorious)... I strongly doubt that's going to change. I'm sure the next Gameboy will be perfectly traditional and should be enough to appease any nostalgia I may have by then, just like the GBA lets me relive the SNES days.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 02, 2005, 12:07:29 PM
Yeah but how you feel if Nintendo said "okay Metroid Prime is now the ONLY way we're making Metroid"? I love Metroid Prime but I love the GBA Metroids as well. The fact that they make both is what I really love. I would be really disappointed if they abandoned the 2D Metroid design. I don't want to see classic ideas abandoned and I'm worried I might see that with the Revolution. I think that's reasonable considering all the things NCL has been saying where they have no intention of using existing ideas and stuff like that. I'll hopefully feel a lot more optimistic and calm about the whole thing once we get more info but right now Nintendo keeps spooking the hell out of me with their comments.
"Even if the Rev turns out to be total crap, Nintendo will still be able to recover, just like they recovered from the VirtualBoy."
The VB was quite a bit different though. It wasn't meant to be their next console it was really their "third pillar" at the time. It wasn't good for them that it bombed but the fact that it was something else allowed them to have a good buzz going about the N64. They had their real next console just waiting around the bend so it was an easy recovery (well there's the N64's problems but those were unrelated to the VB). Having Nintendo's next "real" console bomb huge would be much harder to recover from.
"So you are criticising the DS for not being innovative enough, yet also at the same time criticising the Revolution for being TOO innovative...Riiiiiight..."
You're seeing things in black and white. It's not just "innovation is good/innovation is bad". There needs to be balance. Too little is no good and too much is no good. There has to be a good middle point where familiar ideas are expanded on into something new.
"You've already pointed out Super Mario 64 DS, so while you were arguing about the "lack of innovation" on the DS you also completely forgot that it damages your "oh noes the Revolution can only play gimmick games" argument...The DS plays traditional games, with the touch screen added at the developer's will"
I'm not saying the DS can't play traditional games I'm saying it doesn't have any really great ones yet. I exclude Super Mario 64 DS from this because I don't have to buy a DS in order to play it. One thing I like about the DS is that it accomodates classic style portable games quite well. It doesn't work with all console games but neither would any of the Gameboys.
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 02, 2005, 12:23:23 PM
I was pointing out the fact that the DS can play traditional games, so it should be taken into account that the Revolution has a high chance of playing such games as well...Sorry if I didn't make that clear enough...
Post by: Avinash_Tyagi on March 02, 2005, 12:35:07 PM
Quote
I'm not saying the DS can't play traditional games I'm saying it doesn't have any really great ones yet. I exclude Super Mario 64 DS from this because I don't have to buy a DS in order to play it. One thing I like about the DS is that it accomodates classic style portable games quite well. It doesn't work with all console games but neither would any of the Gameboys.
Sorry Ian but you're wrong:
Meteos
Yoshi Touch and Go
Another Code
Pac-Pix
Were all given high scores by Famitsu, with Meteos nearing a perfect score, I think this proves that great games are available for the DS.
Post by: Ian Sane on March 02, 2005, 12:54:01 PM
I see. That makes sense. Next time Nintendo says something weird I'll just say to myself "The DS can still play normal games. The DS can still play normal games."
"Sorry Ian but you're wrong"
All right then. Sorry 'bout that.
I'll wait until those games are released here before I decide anything about them. After all what Nintendo does in North America is all that really concerns me.
Post by: PaLaDiN on March 02, 2005, 12:59:15 PM
You just hit upon your solution without even realizing it. The next GBA will most likely offer traditional gaming in the same way that this GBA does. You're forgetting to take the next GBA into account when thinking about the Revolution.
Post by: Earthbound_4ever on March 02, 2005, 02:30:31 PM
Anyway I would really like to see what you all think about this. I know very little about the specifics of game development, I'm just throwing something at the wall and seeing if it sticks. (And I'm really tired of great multi-platforms games not being released on the 'cube)
Post by: Bill Aurion on March 02, 2005, 02:36:05 PM
Quote
Perhaps the Revolutionary component of Nintendo’s next system has absolutely nothing to do with the interaction and presentation of games to the player.
Um, no...I do think programming for the Rev will be easier, considering Ninty and their "Developer's System" (the DS), but it is definitely a new way to play games...
Post by: Ian Sane on March 02, 2005, 05:48:14 PM
Though it could be something like a portable/console in one or they've done with a download model or that they've licenced out the technology for other electronic companies to integrate Revolution playability into mainstream electronics. Both of those wouldn't affect how games are played yet would clearly impact the general public. Though they've heavily hinted that it will have to do with the controls and such.
