Topic: EDITORIAL: With Great Power ...

[Nephilim]

"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."

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?

[Dasmos]

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!!

[Bill Aurion]

Hence the reason why he said "rumor."  But due to the fact that Camelot has expressed their interest in working on a console Golden Sun in the past, the likelihood of their next game actually being one is pretty high...

[g-tron3000]

>>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. ... Half-Life 2 neatly defeats your entire hypothesis.<<<

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.  

[g-tron3000]

That video that I was talking about:

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.

[KDR_11k]

I find it unlikely that N is going too far out with the Rev. Look at the DS, it's not some insane, unproven technology, just something never featured in a mainstream console. Nintendo is risk averse, they won't do something completely unproven, just something not used in the same context before.

[Rize]

"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."

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

[Rize]

"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."

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).

[g-tron3000]

As far as the Half-Life issue, I will have to concede since I haven't played it.  BUT, I think you'll have to admit that any advancement that Half-Life might have introduced is nowhere near the "revolution" that something like that video that I posted would be to gameplay.  

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.

[Rize]

"As far as the Half-Life issue, I will have to concede since I haven't played it. BUT, I think you'll have to admit that any advancement that Half-Life might have introduced is nowhere near the "revolution" that something like that video that I posted would be to gameplay."

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.

[Ian Sane]

"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."

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.

[vudu]

Quote
I mean, Half Life and Doom may be impressive, but do they really have a "Holy S***!!!" factor?

Doom 3 doesn't.  At least not on my graphics card.  But I was truely impressed by Half-Life 2.

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?

[Rize]

There was at one time talk of an xbox port, but the time for that is drawing to a close (with a likely XBox2 release at the end of this year).  The final specs for the game were a 1.2 Ghz processor and even without the encumberance of the windows OS, I'm not sure the XBox's old 733 Mhz P3 can handle that.  Of course, Doom 3's minimum specs are even higher (50% more memory and a 1.5 Ghz CPu instead of 1.2) however, Doom 3's requirements stem more from graphics issues than gameplay so perhaps they made cuts to the xbox version's physics engine (for example).  If they did manage to get it to work, it would likely be incredibly butchered (for example, Lemmings on the NES does not come close to capturing the feeling of the SNES version).

[g-tron3000]

>>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.<<

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.

[Rize]

It's still useless.  It's just a cheap way of combining real world images with an interactive element.  Either way it completely takes the possibility of level design away from the game designers.  That leaves them with nothing but toy design.  They can make some toy that acts a certain way.  They could even make AI controlled enemies, but they could not control the terrain because that is defined by whatever you point the camera out.  This would be a poor medium for video games as we know them.  You want to fight some epic battles with your living room as the back drop?  That hardly seems like an improvement, just a gimmick.

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.

[g-tron3000]

>>>It's still useless. It's just a cheap way of combining real world images with an interactive element. Either way it completely takes the possibility of level design away from the game designers. That leaves them with nothing but toy design. They can make some toy that acts a certain way. They could even make AI controlled enemies, but they could not control the terrain because that is defined by whatever you point the camera out. This would be a poor medium for video games as we know them.<<<

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.

[g-tron3000]

This is an article I think I mentioned a while ago on interface design.

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/584/584744p1.html

[Avinash_Tyagi]

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?

[xts3]

Nintendo's major problem is that the Japanese half is losing touch with american and European gamers, while Nintendo of America seems to know what to do but its hands are tied.    Nintendo's other major issue is that its losing touch with technology and not listening to developers, the sole reason the PS1 came to power was because of the CD format, if N64 had been a CD based system from the start PS1 would have never got off the ground and we all know this deep down.  Since PS1 walked away with 66% of former SNES player market.

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.  

[Rize]

You forget how conservative Nintendo is.  On one hand they want to come upon something that will make their system a must have (they don't want to simply create an image and run with it as Sony and MS largely did/do).  However, they don't want to chase their current fanbase away either as that would be suicide.  Revolution will be, at the most, traditional video games with a radically different controller.  This would not be a revolution, it would be suicide.

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).

[Avinash_Tyagi]

I think we've already seen hints at what the Revolution is going to be, just look at Donkey Konga, its a platformer but in a totally new way of playing it.

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).

[Rize]

avinish, I meant that if they used the tech in that video g-tron linked to it would be suicide... I expect them to make major changes to the controller and that will probably be a good thing (mostly)

[Avinash_Tyagi]

Ok, now I understand.

[Jonnyboy117]

Nintendo's assertion that the industry needs major change could be seen from two main perspectives:

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.

[Bill Aurion]

The thing is, I am willing to bet that all three consoles will look VERY, VERY similar in terms of visual content...If that's the case, then wouldn't it make sense to try and separate yourself from the herd?  If you see three systems with identical graphics, yet one is a lot more interactive, which would you pick?  It's just like the DS...Ninty didn't feel like competing over graphics, so they went a different path and picked a successful formula...To think that Ninty should do the same as Sony and MS, and to burn on Ninty trying to throw a wrench into the current way of playing games, is the kind of attitude I really dislike...And funny how it's these SAME FREAKING "GAMERS" that claim Ninty "plays it safe too often"...

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