"And with regards to all the nintendo fanboys who claim that you don't need a powerful system to innovate in the game market.... How does having a more poweful system HURT innovation? who says that sony and microsoft won't be able to innovate just as much if not more then nintendo in this coming generation of consoles." - Some dude on Joystiq
I've wondered this myself...I think in all honesty Nintendo WANTS to limit developers. Including themselves.
This sounds bad to some former (or soon-to-be-former)Nintendo fans, but in a nutshell, Nintendo is forcing themselves and other developers to think INSIDE a box.
At a glance that may seem restrictive, especially when the other console makers don't seem to have those restrictions. The thing is, we as consumers sometimes forget that the console hardware is an artistic medium.
Restrictions = challenge. Every work of art is the result of the struggle between the artists' MIND and his MEDIUM(S), and, of course, TIME. The restrictions INHERENT in those three elements, or caused by circumstance, directly determine the characteristics of the outcome. Art exists because of restrictions.
Videogames are more than "traditional" (read: static) art. They are dynamic, because they are INTERACTIVE. So, like "traditional" games and sports, which are interactivities, they still rely on restrictions:
MEDIUM - Rules in sports or board games act as one type of restriction (e.g. playing surface, field size/ shape, part(s) of the body eligle for use in the game, et cetera)
MIND - Mental ability and strategy play a part in restricting the participants, it also directly affects the other two factors (e.g. the number of players allowed, turn-based play, coaches experience, et cetera)
TIME - In most games, time is also a restricting factor, (e.g. shot clock, hourglass timers in board games, even the length of rests like halftime or timeouts)
I recognize that this is a relatively young artform but the arguments are really unnecessary. Think: how many people seriously debate whether chess is better than checkers? Or whether cricket is better than baseball? (People who do engage in discussions of that nature end up sounding rather silly.)
Each is different, not better or worse, than the other: each has a unique set of rules and restrictions.
The same is true with fine art. The artist is restricted, by circumstance or choice, to use a certain types of paint or certain colors (or for a sculptor, what material: marble, metal, wood…). There is also the decision to use different types of brushes and chisels, or even our hands to mold clay. There are countless types of brushstrokes and chiseling techniques to choose from.
Musically, the composer or performer has a similarly wide array of restrictive choices (number/type of instruments, genre, duration of the piece…)
So, whether it's a game or a work of art, the restrictions do not add to the end product...they ARE the product.
All three videogame consoles are playing by different rules. For the benefit of our visual learners, ALL of the game system manufacturers are forcing developers to think inside a "box". Each "box" is just shaped differently. The four boundary lines are formed by the restrictions ( i.e. the systems features and specs) that make the shape of a box/ rectangle/ trapezoid, et cetera.
Different developers and consumers are attracted to different shaped boxes. Also, different types of games fit into to the different shapes and sizes. An easy example is to compare handheld and console games. The shape of each is DIFFERENT, but is perceived as BETTER or WORSE by the developer or consumer. People prove which shape they like by either developing for that shape or buying games that fit that shape.
So, Nintendo's decision to leave out HD or high spec hardware is purposeful. It is one more identifying restriction that is defining their consoles' "shape". The Gamecube's shape was confused by many developer's and consumer as "like an XBOX or PS2, but less powerful / with no online plans / no DVD funtionality" (or "a similar 'shape' but smaller, and therefore annoyingly restrictive").
Everything about the Revolution is meant to be different: the controller, the lesser emphasis on graphics, the size, the price, (even down to the PR doublespeak, "We aren't competing with MS and SONY"). The DS is not proof that Blue Ocean Strategy "works", it has proved that a uniquely different "shape" garauntees "different shaped games" .
Whether those games are worth playing is a matter of personal taste. That is why some people, like Ian, don't particularly like the "new shaped games" that are receiving praise from game critics.
That is also why, if Nintendo properly markets the "shape" of the Revolution, some developers will avoid it like the plague. New-shaped-games ARE possible on a regular-shaped-systems, HD graphics and advanced AI are parameters that will lead to new "shapes". However, Nintendo is betting on the fact that "new shaped games" will be much more likely to occur with the parameters they are setting for their console.
Topic: IGN Promises Rev Specs: Evening 3/29/06 (Read 95025 times)
