Post by: nemo_83 on July 04, 2003, 11:11:38 AM
The next genration approaches and we the gamers have begun our guessing games of what to expect in the coming years from the big three. Many including myself have been ranting and raving about the mistakes that have been made by the companies this generation, some of which parallel the previous generation. We all have our opinions and hopes for what the companies will do. Games, graphics, processing speed, console appearance, console names, advertising campaigns, online capabilities, hardrive space, game medium, and controllers are speculated upon each day. To see the future one must look to the past (and present) so to invision the triumphs and mistakes that are soon to be made.
The first question is when. When will the next generation come rushing in. I hear and read speculation all of the time about how Sony is going to be patient and wait untill 2006 this time. Using anticipation for the PS3 rather than the PS3 itself to off the competition. Nintendo is know for being the last out of the gate. In the past this has worked for them, but in recent history it has only hendered their success. GameCube is seen as a secondary console for GBA and PS2 owners. Its late arrival did not help it to catch up with the PS2. The general consensus is that Nintendo will launch early (possibly Christmas 2004 in Japan) so to not be left behind. Execs at Nintendo have even been quoted as saying they will not let the competion get ahead next time. MS on the other hand has been very quiet. At least to my knowledge there have been no hints about its new system or when it will be released.
Next gen the companies will need to show focus on correcting past mistakes. Sony will need an easier machine for developers to develop for (it is rummored that the PS3 will be the most difficult hardware ever to develop for). Sony should, although their fans usually do not complain, modify their version of the SNES pad. It is simply put; an obsolete design. Nintendo should change thier image. Not change it to the thirteen year old targeted demographic of the Xbox, but rather become recognized like Sony as a company for all ages. MS for example chooses to target only the ultra violence starved and sexually deprived youth of America. Nintendo gears their games in appearance to mostly kids (but kids hate the way Mario, Zelda, Animal Crossing, etc look) while the gameplay screams for the game to be played by an intelect. (I'm not suggesting a change in design at all in those mentioned games, I love the artistic freedom that Nitendo takes using super deformed characters) What I'm getting at is that Nintendo needs to make new games that are geared to the older market. I look at their new games on Cube and they follow the same trends of design as found in Mario and Animal Crossing. This is a mistake. What makes those art styles so great is thier individual nature. The new games should be NEW. People should look at them and say "that is something I havn't seen on Cube." Custom Robo is a good example of what could help give the system som visual variety. The opposite is true with MS who chooses nothing but realism when making games. (there are exeptions for both consoles such as Metroid and Perfect Dark)
Other mistakes made by Nintendo have been their controller, with its shortage of buttons, their purple console (should have been platinum, the only other color choice that could have appeared any more homoerotic to Americans than purple would have been rainbow), outrageous absence of a real Mario game (Sunshine was like a Luigi's Mansion take on Mario), and crappy advertising (see Sunshine comercial and lack of any comercial for Eternal Darkness for reference). MS has shown they are not so stubborn. After complaints about thier controller arrose they released a new one. Still the black and white buttons were even harder to reach in the new version. The biggest mistake by MS has been the lack of great games. Sony has many great exclusives like Gran Turismo, Grand Theft Auto, Ico, Mark of Kri, etc. Nintendo has had RS2, SSBM, Metroid, Eternal Darkness,
Zelda, etc. MS has had what? Halo, Munch's Odysey, and Jet Set Radio. Brute Force was hyped to be the next big hit for Xbox, but turned out to be a turd.
Graphics will only make things worse for the developer next generation. With more technology comes higher costs, bigger teams, longer dev time, more code to be written, and generally a bigger headache than ever for anyone involved. I say focus on advancing cel shading technologies. A game can look perfect as a cartoon, but can only look like a botched attempt at realism when it well realism is used. The point is to dicover a new form of freedom for the artist. The developer should not be restrained to making the game look real. Then it looks uninspired.
Rather than focusing on graphics so much they should focus on performance and speed of the technology. Consitency within those eye blistering graphics. They should also focus on bringing the gamer further into the game. This means breaking the controller in half into two wireless joysticks used for aiming so one can aim and look seperatly in games. Camera could even be controlled by head gear such as a virtual reality helmet. Spending money on closing the gap between man and the machine rather than enhancing the machine could equal more fun.
Also hardrives and broadband are going to be standard. I feel fiber optics is more logical, but who has that? Other technologies coming up include wireless downloading and uploading, smell simulators, and downloading games straight from the net for rent or owning. Demos could be emailed to users. Voice recognition could take over how we play games. We could be communicating with AI characters rather than just fighting them. The medium for game storage is yet another huge debate. Minidisk backwards compatiblity would be great for Nintendo if they decide to use full size DVDs. Then you could play not only Cube games on the new system, but also games from their new GameBoy if it uses minidisks too (no need for outrageous hardware requirements for play GB games on screen anymore). That does not mean the next GB will be Cube based. Sony will likely stick with full size DVD as well as MS. I believe an enclosed medium should arrise, but that could hurt console sales, by riding them of backwards compatibilty. I like the idea of DVDs enclosed and protected. Scratching would be difficult and pirating would take a hit in the arse.
Post by: Bartman3010 on July 04, 2003, 11:39:54 AM
Post by: DRJ on July 04, 2003, 12:27:19 PM
Post by: Gup on July 04, 2003, 12:46:55 PM
Post by: Uglydot on July 04, 2003, 12:52:46 PM
Post by: Oldskool on July 04, 2003, 02:00:20 PM
Post by: mojorizin on July 04, 2003, 02:34:14 PM
Post by: Mario on July 04, 2003, 09:55:36 PM
Post by: PIAC on July 05, 2003, 01:52:37 AM
*rubs his indigo cube all over himself in a homoerotic fashion*
Post by: Hemmorrhoid on July 05, 2003, 04:32:42 AM
id rather eat or sleep
Post by: Grey Ninja on July 05, 2003, 11:21:23 AM
Post in Fast Forward so that we don't have to read this crap please.
Post by: Don'tHate742 on July 05, 2003, 11:58:55 AM
EDIT:
Oh ya for future referece.........DON"T SAY SO MUCH.
Post by: Grey Ninja on July 05, 2003, 12:03:18 PM
Post by: mjbd on July 06, 2003, 01:22:22 PM
Post by: TheYoungerPlumber on July 06, 2003, 02:51:38 PM
QuoteAgreed: please post in the correct forum. I'm moving this topic.
Post in Fast Forward so that we don't have to read this crap please.
Post by: ThePerm on July 06, 2003, 03:41:07 PM
lets look at advertsiingl. Eternal Darkness didnt get much advertising, but you know there wasa buzz on this game for several years. If you didnt know about it then well gaming is not something you REALLY do.
Post by: thepoga on July 07, 2003, 09:11:51 PM
Post by: HolyPaladin on July 08, 2003, 05:07:01 AM
I grow tired of people suggesting what Nintendo needs to do, as if we somehow know more about running a huge, industry-leading, industry-defining, industry-redefining business than Nintendo does. We will never, ever, ever (And that goes for all the "experts" at IGN and every other website and magazine out there, too.) know everything about the matter that Nintendo knows and never be able to understand it as well or as deeply as they do, will not see the big picture the way that they do or in the detail that Nintendo does. Every move they make is planned, replanned, calculated, and recalculated, and always for a list of purposes and reasons, even if its results are less favorable than desired. None of us could ever run it any better. They're the experts, while we are merely on the outside looking in.
Post by: HereticPB on July 08, 2003, 10:03:54 AM
Just wonderfull and thank you for boaring me to hell.
HtPB
Post by: Clonester on July 09, 2003, 10:15:53 AM
Unlike 95% of the other people here I'd rather read a long, informative post (even if it is stuff we've all heard before) than many short posts. It's like reading a good editorial.
Post by: Andu_Tros on July 22, 2003, 03:07:21 PM
Post by: Chode2234 on July 24, 2003, 05:45:25 AM
I would love to see something revolutionary, but I also want another zelda.
Post by: nemo_83 on July 25, 2003, 11:06:16 PM
What if next gen Sony and MS really push DVD playback, DVD recording, and Tivo like hardware? Nintendo should push the fact that the competition is not about gaming, but rather about being a vcr. That kind of advertising that points at the competition with the middle finger.
Post by: kennyb27 on July 28, 2003, 08:43:32 AM
First you say
QuoteThen comment
What I'm getting at is that Nintendo needs to make new games that are geared to the older market. I look at their new games on Cube and they follow the same trends of design as found in Mario and Animal Crossing. This is a mistake. What makes those art styles so great is thier individual nature.
QuoteIt just doesn't fit.
I say focus on advancing cel shading technologies. A game can look perfect as a cartoon, but can only look like a botched attempt at realism when it well realism is used. The point is to dicover a new form of freedom for the artist. The developer should not be restrained to making the game look real. Then it looks uninspired.
You talk about changing styles to appeal to different "ages" as one would say. This is what Nintendo DID do. When they moved from SNES to N64 they changed the style of Mario to 3D thereby changing the game in itself. When they moved from N64 to GCN they again changed the style of Mario to a island-themed waterpack game. I, for one, thought it was a great game. Point being: when you change the style the game changes, that's what Nintendo does.
You say Nintendo has a shortage of buttons on their controller. Stupid. PS2 has ten plus a D-pad and two analog sticks. GameCube has eight or ten if you count the click on the L and R buttons like I do, because they can in fact be used as separate buttons, oh yeah, and a D-pad and two analog sticks, go figure.
And you automatically assume online is the absolute future of gaming; I don't see the point of that.
We have two years until the the first console is launched, let's leave the speculation until then and do what we should be doing: enjoying the games that we have.
Post by: The Real Mario on July 28, 2003, 03:27:11 PM
Post by: nemo_83 on July 30, 2003, 04:57:47 PM
Let us examine the art behind Sunshine. First Nintendo has chosen to stick to the classic character models. A super deformed appearance is given to all of the characters and enviroments. I'm glad they haven't changed Mario into a super real looking character. Given that he always gets little tweaks to his design in each entry to the franchise, his initial presentation has never changed. If Nintendo changed his design it would be like Disney making Mickey look like a real diseased greasy NY sewer rat.
Next lets look at the graphical choices they have taken. The game almost looks cell shaded. The textures are all original and look as though they fit with the rest of the game. Consistency is what makes a fake world seem real. If Mario Sunshine had bumbmapped textures that were photorealistic then they would seem out of place.
What I said about toon shaded games, and how they should be the focus was about how limitless the number of art styles there are that could be expressed through cel shading. Realistic games all look the same because they are supposed to look real or simulate real. By that I mean they use many different approaches to achieve thier vision of realism like reflexions and bump mapping as compared to a particular toon that focuses only on values, or only on colors. There is more out there than eight layer textures and bump maping. Some of the most supperior lighting effects I have seen have been in toon games. The new cel shading technologies allow for the game developer to make the game look like the game art, but there are more justified reasons for cel shading than making the game look like the instruction manual. Look at Animatrix for example. There are many different design styles. And there are also many different animation styles expressed. Some have strong lines, while others use none, and still others draw focus to the lines by having them unsettled or always moving. Excuse me for focusing on toon animation rather than say surrealistic animation (animation that has surreal characteristics of cartoon or fantacy worlds, but are animated to seem realistic such as Toy Story and Monsters Inc.) because it is easier to make a game look believably really like a cartoon than it is to go head long into realism. Art is an interpretation of realism no matter how surreal the results may be. Toons can be used to create a super realistic game. Remember that no matter whether the artist uses cubism, surrealism, or impressionism (I wish they could on a game, the colors and lively brush strokes make this particulary painting style seem very realistic in my eye) it is still realism, only through a different perspective. I don't believe that color has truly been expressed in games as it has in painting. People say that there is nowhere left to go with graphics other than ultra high polygon rates to make things photo realistic. I say look at art and how artist achieved realism before computers. I know it sounds contradictory when I say realism should die and then say that cel shading is just an interpretation of realism. I just ask you to take the statement with a grain of comon sense and realize I'm refering to the games that limit themselves with this ideal of what realism is. If the developer doesn't take the liberty of creating a creative world and just imitates the look of reality then he is only cheating everyone out of the oportunity of viewing the world differently. This hard to explain. If everyone jumps on the cel shading bandwaggon then will Nintendo jump off? Probably, but I hope not. With the cel shading they can still make their games look like no other games either realistic or cel shaded. But if they decide to go the other direction then they are expected to follow the rules of realsim. Just compare the visual ingenuity of Zelda WW compared to Star Fox Adventures lack of artistic freedom.
As for the controller. It has seven buttons. The double click should be implemented on the next console, but everyone must realize that it is essentially only good for altering the function of the button and cannot be viewed as a stand alone button. The real problems I have are the uncomfortable Z button, the fact there is only one, the sticks don't have double functionality (I like FPS and that clicking makes things simple for things like crouching and zooming), and just to complain some more the d pad is made for small monkey hands.
