Topic: That next-gen itch

[wandering]

Looking at a screenshot of a Wii game doesn't make me feel the same way I felt the first time I saw Donkey Kong Country. Or Mario 64. Or Rogue Squadron II. A part of me craves for more graphical advancement than the Wii provides. I itch for truly next-gen visuals, from time to time. And the Wii leaves that itch unscratched. Here's a pretty good article from someone who kind-of feels the same way (anti-wii ediorials seem to be the thing to do these days.) He makes some good points.

Quote
Ah, but you persist. "Twilight Princess looks awesome! What are you talking about?" Let's try a thought experiment. Imagine that the premiere GameCube launch title was Majora's Mask. "Yeah, well it still would have been better than Luigi's Mansion!" some of you exclaim. You know what? I agree with you. But I also would have been sorely disappointed if the GameCube not only didn't launch with, but was simply not capable of handling a game like Rogue Leader, with its vastly increased size, scope, and detail over its predecessor.

Quote
I need that next-gen "wow" factor. I don't think hardware power is the be-all, end-all, but I do think it's an essential enabler. I love what Nintendo does with its first-party titles. I want to see what those same developers can do with next-gen hardware. What would the next Zelda title be like if given three times the RAM and polygon budget supported by the Wii? What would Wave Race be like with seven cores to compute wave action?

And physics—my God, physics! If ever there was an enabling technology perfectly suited to Nintendo's special brand of gameplay innovation, it's physics! What would a new Mario game be like running on hardware capable of much more advanced physics simulation? Imagine the possibilities for new Metroid beam weapons and destructible environments.

And yet....is the leap from the N64 to the GameCube really that comparable to the leap from the Xbox to the Xbox 360? 360 games don't make my jaw drop in amazement the way GameCube games did back then. I'm actually not sure the 360 really scratches that itch I have, either. Furthmore, does Wave Race really need better physics? Does Metroid need destructible environments?

Part of me feels that complaining about the Wii's graphics is like complaining that a VW Beetle, while fun, isn't the size of a tank and doesn't have great horsepower. Go buy a hummer already.

Oh, but at least he thinks the remote will "distract" him for a while:

Quote
As for the next-gen thing, I don't know what I'm going to do. For now, I'll try to wait it out. The Wiimote stuff is sure to distract me for at least six months. After that, UT2007 on a stacked Mac Pro will keep me occupied for a while. But eventually, I'm going to yearn to see Link running through vast, procedurally rendered forests, hiding in the realtime soft shadows to avoid the gaze of runtime-animated minions of evil hunting in AI-driven packs. Sigh.

Yeah, that's what I call wildly out-of-whack priorities. But to each his own.

The Wii may not scratch that next-gen itch for me, but it does scratch places that I need scratched far worse. A small part of me may always yearn for better hardware.....but I can suck it up.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

You could go back to the NES days, days where practically all games ran at 60fps.

[Arbok]

Quote
Originally posted by: Professional 666
You could go back to the NES days, days where practically all games ran at 60fps.

Not Super Dodgeball, god bless...

[GoldenPhoenix]

For me I haven't been as excited for a console since the N64 days with Wii. So I guess my itch has been scratched and like Mario 64 before it, I will have fresh experiences with new ways to play games. That is something I never experienced with GC even with the increased visuals.

[Nick DiMola]

I agree with some of your points, but that is why I have an Xbox 360. I can enjoy all of the new Wii experiences, and whenever I have that itch, I just pop in a 360 game and scratch away. I think the days of single console ownership are dead. If you want to really experience everything out there you need to pick up something else alongside your Nintendo system, and vice-versa of course.

[Artimus]

A fourth generation SNES game really gave you the next generation itch?

[Bloodworth]

You know, considering that a year ago all of us were complaining that Xbox 360 games didn't look much better for a machine that costs $400.  With Nintendo making a system that people can actually afford, is it that surprising that Wii doesn't look much better either?  

[Hostile Creation]

Except I haven't been impressed by anything I've seen on Xbox360 or PS3, either.  I don't think there's a graphical leap the industry is capable of making that will impress me now.

[Nick DiMola]

I would agree with you Hostile if you have only seen 360 games on a standard tv. I have mine running on an HDTV and Kameo for instance and Ghost Recon look flat out gorgeous. The leap from the xbox to the 360 is bigger than you realize when you see both of them up on an hdtv.

[trip1eX]

Sorry dumb article.  The next-gen itch on the Wii is different.  It's the controls.  That's the exciting part.  Those that stare at screenshots will of course be sitting there thinking the worst.  Hasn't this been discussed before?  

Next-gen graphics are great.  But they also do things like lead to longer loading times and crappier performance because developers always favor the graphics over the frame rate at least it seems like it.  And they really don't make a game fun.

It's a bit of a mirage.  I see the screenshots sometimes and yeah it's like Wow.  But then you go to a 360 booth and after 5 minutes you're playing the same old game.  AT least that's how it is for me.  

I've had not trouble being a pcgamer in hi-res and then going to play 'Cube games on my regular Tv.  I like the sharp resolution on the pc, but again it tends to wear away after 5 minutes.  Then you're left with the game.    

And really you say the same thing about the wiimote.  It won't guarantee games are fun.  Oh using it at first in any game will probably be fun.  But if the game itself is boring then the wiimote won't change things.  I think the wiimote will make games as next-gen as hd does tho.  And maybe more so since games are built on interaction.

[Galford]

Good article.  
That article sums up what some of us dissenters have been saying.

A good developer will use more horsepower to do something.
Publishers are the ones who force endless sequels upon us.

[Ceric]

Yeah.  Game systems aren't like watching Heroes in HD and then watching it in SD.  It feels grainy and you notice it the whole time.
Games on the other hand can wow me with consistent graphics but if its just Hyper-Realistic Tic-Tac-Toe or like it wouldn't be the same as the TV.
If I want something for graphic sake only I'm better served by my HD TV channels.

[GoldenPhoenix]

Quote
Originally posted by: Mr. Jack
I would agree with you Hostile if you have only seen 360 games on a standard tv. I have mine running on an HDTV and Kameo for instance and Ghost Recon look flat out gorgeous. The leap from the xbox to the 360 is bigger than you realize when you see both of them up on an hdtv.

I have to disagree with you there, I still don't think the leap is that great and the difference between HD-TV and standard is overblown a bit. I've played Ghost Recon, and yeah it is nice but it was always pretty nice visually last generation as well, so the leap is not that significant. Besides my PC is already a better machine for visuals than the Xbox 360, so if I want next generation visuals I'll play PC games, if I want some quality exclusive games with less emphasis on visuals I'll go with my Xbox 360 and Wii thank you .

[AnyoneEB]

I agree that power is important as far as it affects gameplay, but, at least graphics-wise, the Wii is plenty powerful. On the N64 a lot of games had trouble with draw-in, which did not detract from the game too much, but was still annoying (see: Mario 64. Or, rather, don't see because it's too far away. . I do not remember noticing that in GameCube games, and I would be very surprised if it was a problem on the Wii.

On the other hand, some of the quotes in the first post reference AI and physics, which are areas where additional power could improve gameplay. I guess we will see how well developers actually use the additional power on the PS3 and 360.

[Ian Sane]

I don't expect graphics to always provide such a great leap.  It is going to hit a wall eventually.  Now I'm still a supporter of improved hardware for all the less noticable stuff it can do like AI and more characters on screen and better physics and such.  Nothing is going to wow graphically as much as the N64 Zeldas did.  That's just how things are.

Still there are things can still be done.  I haven't seen a 3D game do a forest right yet.  It seems like something that would be really hard to do but I haven't seen it yet (though for all I know it exists in a PC game I haven't played).

One thing though that has kept me from being wowed by the Xbox 360 is the art design of the games.  Call of Duty may be pretty but it looks dull.  There's nothing about realism that really wows me.  I need something with a little more fantasy to it.  It can still look realistic but the setting needs dragons or aliens or something out-of-the-ordinary to get my attention.  At the same time attention to detail is important.  Super Mario Sunshine is a better looking game than Super Mario 64 but I wasn't wowed by it's graphics because to me it looked like it lacked polish and details.  That made the game look bland to me.  Graphics are all about the work that goes into them.  MS isn't going to impress me with dull realism and Nintendo isn't going to impress me with simplified visuals regardless of how weak or powerful their hardware is.

Twilight Princess does excite me graphically but it did as a Cube title anyway.  I've wanted it since 2000.

[NinGurl69 *huggles]

1)  Technology/horsepower/etc -- all the things that actually make the console expensive
2)  Art direction -- are the visuals inherently appealing?
3)  Purpose -- do the damn graphics have any meaning within the gameplay experience?  (MIND YOU THE GAMEPLAY HAS TO BE GOOD FIRST)

Wii may be a repackaged GameCube, but so far the PS3 and 360's idea of "next-gen" is about repackaged gameplay (or somewhat new and so-so executed gameplay).  (and should I mention how awful Sonic Next looks?  oh i just did.  hell, it moves along slower than the first Sonic Adventure)

PS3/360:  Using visuals (or tech geared toward some visual experience *blu rey VOMIT*) to justify the price.  which is relatively high.  EVEN THE GAMEPLAY isn't used to justify the price.  THE VISUALS are used to justify the dev-platform choice!  "chose 460 cuz it has ONREAL3 enjin support and pretty imposter-mapping!"

Wii:  Using gameplay to justify the price (froth for TRAUMA CENTER).

The other guys sure aren't bringing anything ground-breaking.  We didn't jump into 3 generations of 2D home gaming (excluding transition from Atari to NES).  But we ARE jumping into the 3rd generation of 3D consoles, and the inherent problem with that is WE KNOW WHAT TO EXPECT.  Mario64 had that SPECIAL, PARTICULAR, UNIQUE surprise advantage, where it demonstrated a new generation of visual AND gameplay.  [PC gaming has always been ever-evolving, but since "new badass tech" seems to always be gaged with FPS gaming, my eyes roll back and generation comparison becomes meaningless since the same core graphical expectations have been around as long as the 3D acceleration craze hit since the Pentium days -- add more of the same, to play more of the same? wtf?]

We're simply NOT going to see Mario64's unique "generation jump" until we hit another fundamental change in technology and game development.  For the next/upcoming generation, graphics are not that jump.  (i don't know if you've noticed, but Devil May Cry 4 doesn't look as good as its protoype footage as well as the long-forgotten RE5 trailer)

So, what exactly is one paying for?
I SURE AS HELL ain't paying the extra (YES IT'S "EXTRA") cash to invest in visual upgrades for games that still act too much like their last-gen predecessors (in the case of the latest Ghost Recon and Rainbow Six games, they're garbage in comparison to their forefathers despite "me-too" graphics technology; style and gameplay have been butchered by Ubisoft).  FF12's recent gameplay fiasco likes to indicate future "gameplay" involves gaming that looks great and plays itself!

At least on Wii I won't (yes, i predict.  dict.  dic.  naughty!) feel like I'm being cheated out of my money AND MY TIME.  Visuals?  Smooth and responsive and lively -- exactly what I ask for.  As for development objectives, the graphics aren't being forced onto the console (which leads to poor game fluidity, which is not tolerable) this time around.

One side of the TV screen involves expensive tech and movie-class fluff and big BANG ANG BOOM for your little button presses.  The other side of the screen GIVES A DAMN about WHAT you do, and HOW you do it.

What side of the screen are YOU on?

*This IGN-Pro Weekly Pro-Cast is not aimed at anyone in particular

[zakkiel]

This appears to be a long, serious post. Who are you, and what have you done with Professional 666?  

[JonLeung]

Note that even "Professional 666"'s words in CAPITAL LETTERS are actually emphasizing the truth rather than sarcasm and/or silliness.

[couchmonkey]

Ian: Yeah, forests are a tough nut to crack, so much variation, and so many details.  Resident Evil 4 actually had some really cool forests, it managed them by making it autumn and removing those pesky leaves.  Twighlight Princess also appears to have some impressive forests - not as technically impressive as 360 or PC, but better in terms of art direction.

I've looked at some Xbox 360/PC games such as Oblivion and Test Drive Unlimited, and they still have a lot of problems.  I think the biggest issue is scale. In most current high-powered games, the trees look pretty good individually, but when you view forests from a distance, the trees look like carbon-copies spread out over pristine grassy areas. It looks sterile and empty - Oblivion and Warhawk show some examples of this.  Then a few games like Test Drive look quite impressive from a distance because they pack lots of trees close together like a real forest, but they achieve that by using simple geometric shapes, so once you view the trees close up they look flat and phoney.

Edit: I'm much happier with Wii than with 360 or PS3, but I sure wouldn't mind if Nintendo gave me everything PLUS Xbox 360 level graphics for another $100.  There is definitely a difference...but it's not as big as it should be for that price.

[KnowsNothing]

Yeah, a forest done right would be nice, but game makers are fat nerds that never go outside, so how can we expect them to know what a forest looks like?

So instead they make Monkey Ball.  WIN.

[decoyman]

Someone must've done it before, but couldn't you employ fractals somehow to make awesome forests?

I DO agree with Wandering in that I am not "WOWED" by the graphics I've seen so far. Nintendo's been saying it for years now, but that graphical leap just can't happen with the same magnitude as it has before. (Though, I admit, when I first saw HDTVs on display in stores, I was blown away by the clarity. There were just random pictures of nature scenes, and yet I was compelled to stand before them, silently pawing at the glass as if it were some sort of window into another world /tycho.) It's sort of like I've gone into an ice cream shop, and the man at the counter takes my money, but then gives me a bowl of chilled pudding with a dollop of whipped cream on top. Is it quite scrumptious? Yes, indeed. But it is not ice cream. It is a new sort of scrumptious.

Something I DO think we'll notice this go-round (which the so-called graphics whores will appreciate) is more games running at 60fps or at least at a locked 30fps framerate. Fluidity of animation wows me only slightly less than HD.

EDIT: Crap, forgot to mention (and this was echoed by Ian and others): I agree that Excellent Wii Art Direction can easily trump the PS3/X360 hardware advantage any day. (Case in point: MP3:C)

[mantidor]

I agree that graphically the new gen has been underwhelming, but Ill admit Lair impressed me, of course truth is Im a sucker for dragons, put one in a game and Ill be all over it.

What I sure don't like is developers getting lazy with nintendo's console using the excuse that its not as powerful as the other two, at least is not a ps2, games should look way better than that.

[Spak-Spang]

Are PS3 and Xbox 360 games visually greater than previous generations?  Without a doubt they are...and when the right game comes along we will all be stunned and saying WOW.

I think here is the difference.  With this generation of games we were able to move closer to seeing realistic characters without moving into hyper-realism which is really bad for animation.  

We were wowed because it didn't matter about art direction, because the leap was able to give us graphics that we dreamed while playing the Nintendo 64 and Playstation.  Then as the generation grew art direction brought games that were beautiful and truly artistic expressions to our games.

Now, we have seen what visuals can do, and we expect them to look as they do now.  We aren't wowed, because we were actually expecting more.  In this environment artistic expression and style are more important than realism...because now we are moving to hyper-realistic expression and our human eye natural points out the flaws of animation when it moves too close to reality...the fantasy aspect is gone.

To me, Wii Sports looks just as stunning as several of the generic Xbox 360 and PS3 games I have seen.  I will admit that WiiSports technically is inferior but to my eye I am more impressed with Wii Sports.  

This is why I think Nintendo's Wii will make a huge splash this holiday.  Its experience is unique and different.  Seperating yourself from your competition is important, because now to get the Wii experience you have to buy a Wii.  To get the Xbox 360 or PS3 experience I could literally buy either system and be fine.  

[Kairon]

I've been wowed more by Red Steel's artistic direction than StrangleHold's attempt to model the face of Chow-Yun Fat.

There are some really technically impressive games out there, but I've never been the type to be impressed by them for more than 2 seconds. I just can't stare at Gran Turismo's cars in high definition and get excited: It plays the same doesn't it? So what's the deal?

~Carmine M. Red
Kairon@aol.com

[Ceric]

I agree. Liar look impressive.  So does Gear of War.  I also agree that developers who think that they have an excuse to be lazy on the Wii like they were lazy on the Cube tough dice.  After this launch I will make it a point not to touch games with lazy artists.  When the PS2 can have the likes of FFXII and other very beautiful games being the weakest of this gen.  Yep.  They need to shape up or ship out.