Gaming Next Gen Consoles

[BlueYoshi]

Links:

[url]http://games.kikizo.com/news/200407/017.asp[/url]

[url]http://www.gamedaily.com/playstation2/article/?id=7140&game_id=[/url]

There has been some mentioning of the PS3 and Xbox2 (Xenon) only as far as their unveiling. We'll probably see the PS3's model and line-up by next year's E3, and if Sony are going to follow the PS2's timetable then we may be looking at a release set as late as 2006 in Japan, meaning that the US and UK will get a date beyond that, but right now most things regarding that seem rumoured.

To keep the market in tact, each of the companies can't afford not to develop new consoles, but what really bugs me is how they'll go about it.

Sony have already announced that they may be using the CELL chipset for the system, which will facilitate enhanced graphics engines and faster broadband connection speeds for online play. I can't imagine the costs that are going to be involved though, particularly with technology as such.

I'm all for better online capabilities and whatnot, however, for Sony to create a fuss over visualisations just seems raw. I can understand if a small segment of the market is attracted by those features, but surely the rest know better? right now I'm thinking of whether or not Sony should just invest their time and money into franchising their own line of games because let's face it, there's no point of having a visually formidable game that's impossible to play. The majority's main concern will always be around how current games have been frisked so as better ones can be made in the future that format the essentials for a quality game, like gameplay and various other innovations.

Down in MS's neck of the woods, it'll be interesting to see what could happen if they launch the Xbox2 in 2005, as stated.

Seeing as it's most successful in the US, they'll have more hope of prospering there if their heavy titles make a shift to the Xbox2, as long as their Xbox predecessors won't be compatible with it. I'm not saying that MS's battle plan should reflect that, but it's open as the wiser path. Japan will stay a total grey area though; I can only imagine that it'll do more damage judging by how poorly the Xbox sold over there.

The first link is pretty informative; it shows some good images of Sony's marketing status and their plans for the PSP involving a language translator lol, sounds funny, but can be seen as a mask for their desperate resort to fending off its rivals, I think. We'll see.

[James]

[color=#707875]Regarding Xenon, I think that a late 2005 (or late fiscal 2005) release is pretty likely, considering two major points.

Firstly, Microsoft is apparently planning to omit a built-in hard drive for Xenon. And secondly, apparently they are planning to avoid backwards-compatibility with original Xbox games.

If this is true, it would definitely allow Microsoft to launch before Nintendo or Sony. It would significantly reduce development time and it would also potentially reduce cost.

However, it's interesting to note that Xenon may be the [i]least [/i]powerful of the next generation systems. There are strong suggestions that both Revolution and PS3 will be more powerful (but will also arrive later).

I am wondering if Revolution will feature backwards-compatibility with GameCube though. I'm also curious as to what kind of media format the system will use. I've read that Nintendo might be developing a higher-density version of their GameCube optical disc (which would make sense), but that hasn't been confirmed.

If PS3 makes it in fiscal 2005, I'm going to be somewhat surprised. Nobody has development kits yet and the hardware hasn't been finalized. Final release dates and software development dates strongly rely on that information.[/color]

[Zidargh]

Even though I support backward compatability, when a next generation of consoles is created, the older generation of games are simply forgotten compared to the next gen range, which is why I question why companies take so long in creating backward compatability in the first place.

All I know is PS3's going to be one hell of an expensive console and I'm definitely not going to make the mistake of buying it immediately when it's at it's price peak, and then it falls in one month again.

I have a very strong feeling that once the PSP is released, Sony's profits are going to drop considerably, especially if they're just focusing on visual quality now, so I recommend that they do not start to get into a rut with this next-gen thing.

Let's hope Microsoft take the route more cautiously this time as we know what happened to the price after such a short period of time. They appear to be rushing out the console so they can make a quick buck, which makes me wonder, "Do they have something else up their sleeve?" I highly doubt it.

Well, good ole' England are going to have a long wait for these consoles, that's all I know for definite. Damn I hate living here sometimes, lol.

[James]

[color=#707875]Backwards compatibility was a huge factor for PS2. And if Xenon does arrive next year, then it's essentially going to be cutting Xbox's life somewhat short. Backwards compatibility would make sense -- particularly in the Japanese market.

So, if Microsoft is indeed cutting that feature, it's going to hurt on some level, especially if Revolution and PS3 contain the ability. However, you can bet that Xenon will have a really cool Xbox Live capability out of the box. It'll no doubt be far more Xbox Live focused.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

Any news on the sorts of controllers the consoles will have? IGN did a whole time-waster article on potential gyration stuff for the next Nintendo system, but apart from a couple of neat ideas they mostly spewed BS. Though it's completely plausible that Nintendo might want a controller that can feel its own motion in any direction.

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']Firstly, Microsoft is apparently planning to omit a built-in hard drive for Xenon. And secondly, apparently they are planning to avoid backwards-compatibility with original Xbox games.[/color][/quote]

Yeah, Xenon's hardware is different from the original Xbox, so running lower-res games would be a bother. I don't think it was MS's original intention to go that way because Xenon will be using an ATI graphics chip instead this time. The Xbox ran on a NVIDIA, and some fall outs regarding MS's violation of their intellectual property rights caused them to switch over.

[Petie]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]Backwards compatibility was a huge factor for PS2. And if Xenon does arrive next year, then it's essentially going to be cutting Xbox's life somewhat short. Backwards compatibility would make sense -- particularly in the Japanese market.

So, if Microsoft is indeed cutting that feature, it's going to hurt on some level, especially if Revolution and PS3 contain the ability. However, you can bet that Xenon will have a really cool Xbox Live capability out of the box. It'll no doubt be far more Xbox Live focused.[/color][/QUOTE][font=Verdana][color=blue]I completly agree with you here. If they cut that feature and release it next year, it won't help them much. Xbox isn't really that old yet and without backwards compability, people will either have to keep both systems to play their Microsoft based games or will just forget about the Xbox all together leaving Nintendo and Sony more room to make more money on GameCube and PS2.[/color][/font]

[James]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Any news on the sorts of controllers the consoles will have? IGN did a whole time-waster article on potential gyration stuff for the next Nintendo system, but apart from a couple of neat ideas they mostly spewed BS. Though it's completely plausible that Nintendo might want a controller that can feel its own motion in any direction.[/quote]
[color=#707875]I just want to mention that [i]I [/i]wrote that article along with an N-Sider colleague.

The article wasn't intended to reveal the gospel truth; nobody really knows what Nintendo is up to. The point of the article was to "come up with ideas" -- some of which are more likely than others. This is why each idea was classified as to how plausible it is. All of them -- even the more way out ones -- were based on research. So I feel I need to clarify that.

In regard to controllers, nothing is really certain. However, we can be sure that Microsoft won't repeat their mistake with Xbox -- in other words, they'll produce a controller that is more akin to Controller S.

For Sony, I think it's safe to assume that the PS3 controller will be very similar to the current one. I hope that they at least make it more comfortable, even if they keep a similar design.

As for Nintendo, nobody [i]really [/i]knows, as I said above. There are some indications as to what they might be doing (gyroscopic technology being one possibility). There is also the possibility of the new controller having an LCD screen mounted on it, or using a trackball-style system. All of these ideas are plausible in that they are based on Nintendo's own investments and research.

But what Nintendo eventually comes up with is really anybody's guess.[/color]

[Dragon Warrior]

Don't forget the Nintendo DS (Duel-Screens). That baby is coming out at the end of the year and it's no rumor. Get this--a handheld system like Gameboy that has better graphics than a N64! Sweeeet. I'm sure many of you have already heard of it. It sounds absolutely zy-zigga, if you ask me.

I also like how it has an internet-like dealio built in. Uber awesome! It's name will change from Nintendo DS to something different later, though.

[James]

[color=#707875]Gee, DW...you didn't see the two massive threads about DS already? ~_^[/color]

[Dragon Warrior]

Obviously not because I never go here, but I'm pleased I got to say it before somebody in this thread ^_^ BLACK MAGE POWA!

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875]I just want to mention that [i]I [/i]wrote that article along with an N-Sider colleague.

The article wasn't intended to reveal the gospel truth; nobody really knows what Nintendo is up to. The point of the article was to "come up with ideas" -- some of which are more likely than others. This is why each idea was classified as to how plausible it is. All of them -- even the more way out ones -- were based on research. So I feel I need to clarify that.[/QUOTE]

Hahar! I apologize if I offended you; it's just that those articles never really have a point, like that "what we know so far about Halo 2" one they had a while back. Anyway, the gyration thing was the only idea that I found really cool, but I can't help thinking how goobery I'd look if I was swinging my arms wildly trying to get my F-Zero racer not to fly off the edge of a track. So it'd probably be something not quite like Minority Report, heh. Mostly it's cool because of how much more responsive they can make a controller with it.

[QUOTE]In regard to controllers, nothing is really certain. However, we can be sure that Microsoft won't repeat their mistake with Xbox -- in other words, they'll produce a controller that is more akin to Controller S.[/QUOTE]
Yeah. I really like the S. Maybe more than Gamecube's controller; I can't decide. They're both really comfortable for me, but the Gamecube has better L, R, A, B, X, Y buttons but a way cheesy Z button. I think if Nintendo keeps joysticks they'll add the clicking mechanism, or at least I hope they do. Also a better directional pad... well I'm getting ahead of myself.

[QUOTE]For Sony, I think it's safe to assume that the PS3 controller will be very similar to the current one. I hope that they at least make it more comfortable, even if they keep a similar design.[/QUOTE]
They should replace that controller with a bag of potato chips. I'd be happier.

[BlueYoshi]

At the moment, I'm most conceived by Nintendo's approach with almost all of their products, and not just Revolution.

Nintendo have said that their plans with Revolution will revolutionise gaming to a whole new level by putting gameplay and compatibility as their foremost objective. At the risk of sounding hypocritical, they really ought to sort that out.

Mario Sunshine was ideally poor when handling gameplay because it just made the whole thing seem a lot stiffer. If you look back in the day, the Mario games weren't at all glamorous, but they definitely delivered a good sense of rapid gaming.

I feel that that quality has been overcome by today's variety of games. Of course they aren't to blame, but the fact that certain gamers have missed out on what we grew up with -- the younger audience -- has caused visuals to be all the craze. That's not at all where the money's at.

Another thing I've noticed about these next generation games is that the more they are developed, the less they become addictive. Space Invaders was just a bunch of pixels slammed together, but the nature of it felt extremely challenging, and that's what urged gamers to play it more and more. It's something I fear for the future of gaming because evolution can sometimes be a bad thing, and it's something that's happening a lot more often.

However, Nintendo are reeling themselves in to that target area; they really are aiming to aspire over their competitors with what people would call good gameplay. If you take a look at Donkey Konga's Bongo controller, you'll see that the structure of it enhances the way it can be played with only three main features, which provides excellent subtlety regarding Nintendo's plans.

[James]

[QUOTE=ScirosDarkblade]Hahar! I apologize if I offended you; it's just that those articles never really have a point, like that "what we know so far about Halo 2" one they had a while back. Anyway, the gyration thing was the only idea that I found really cool, but I can't help thinking how goobery I'd look if I was swinging my arms wildly trying to get my F-Zero racer not to fly off the edge of a track. So it'd probably be something not quite like Minority Report, heh. Mostly it's cool because of how much more responsive they can make a controller with it.
[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]You didn't offend me, but you did miss the point of the article. The point was to provide something fun to read; to get people's imaginations going. This is why speculative pieces are written. The difference with ours is that we had the research to support much of it.

In regard to what BlueYoshi mentioned, it is clear that Nintendo don't want to follow the "more realistic is best" route.

And if you want to see where that idea is sourced from, you only have to look at the state of the Japanese industry right now. Console sales are flat and even the biggest titles have struggled to hit sales targets. There's clearly an indifference in that market right now, when it comes to new games.

So Nintendo does not want to simply say "here's a better looking game -- go buy it because it's pretty." They want to say "buy this game because you've never played something like this in your life and it will feel completely new to you."

A [i]lot [/i]of people misunderstand that approach. They think that Satoru Iwata hates online games and that Nintendo doesn't like nice graphics. But it's not about graphics per se; it's about overall design philosophy.

The next generation will be interesting, particularly in Japan. Because we'll really see if the various companies involved can break the indifference that is holding the market right now.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='James][color=#707875']And if you want to see where that idea is sourced from, you only have to look at the state of the Japanese industry right now. Console sales are flat and even the biggest titles have struggled to hit sales targets. There's clearly an indifference in that market right now, when it comes to new games.[/color][/quote]

[color=teal]Definitely. Most of the current Nintendo best sellers in Japan are GBA games? classics for that matter. Just goes to show what we're going on about.

MS will need a bit more attention if they're hoping to make it, though. Xbox Live was one of the key features of the Xbox when it was released, mainly to meet competitive demands with Nintendo and Sony, but also to let gamers benefit from interacting with eachother a greater deal more with some of their hit titles from various developers.

Unfortunately for them, that little venture was a huge backfire on MS's behalf. When you take into account that Metroid Prime overtook Xbox Live's sales twice over from the week they were both released, you won't really want to reserve your faith in them again, especially that MP was just a piece of software compared to MS's short-lived stepping stone. The headset was probably the most decorous thing about it, I'd say.

There are only two ways that MS can go in light of this; they can either continue to spiral around and achieve next to nothing, or try to out-smart both Nintendo and Sony at the same time with something new (not likely, heh), because it's blatantly obvious that Revolution and PS3 will support online gaming, and are extremely capable of advertising it well enough? MS just can't afford another blow like that.

Right now, Xbox is expected to make break-even in 2005, even after they were said to have done it by now a few years ago. But by then, Xenon will already be on the shelves, so MS will need to concentrate on making decent sales with both of their consoles, giving Nintendo the opportunity to breeze through the market nice and easy, inevitably leaving the PS3 as their only real pressure.

It should also be noted that the DS should be considered as "next generation". The way I see it, potential handheld LAN games would beat any plans that future consoles have regarding online play hands down because of the outstanding levels of convenience it would portray, and having two separate windows benefits the overall cause of it.

So yeah, even if it is inferior to these upcoming consoles in technology and power, it certainly is just as creative in terms of its capabilities.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[quote name='James']You didn't offend me, but you did miss the point of the article. The point was to provide something fun to read; to get people's imaginations going. This is why speculative pieces are written. The difference with ours is that we had the research to support much of it.[/quote]
Well duh, I don't know why you think I thought the piece was meant for anything other than fun speculation. It couldn't have been anything else. But to me, there was no point to the article other than the actual facts you provided (what Nintendo's investing in in terms of R&D), that's all. I don't care for speculation myself.

[QUOTE]In regard to what BlueYoshi mentioned, it is clear that Nintendo don't want to follow the "more realistic is best" route.
And if you want to see where that idea is sourced from, you only have to look at the state of the Japanese industry right now. Console sales are flat and even the biggest titles have struggled to hit sales targets. There's clearly an indifference in that market right now, when it comes to new games.
So Nintendo does not want to simply say "here's a better looking game -- go buy it because it's pretty." They want to say "buy this game because you've never played something like this in your life and it will feel completely new to you."[/QUOTE]
That's a different marketing approach, but I'm not sure it's any more sound (at least the way you put it). Good technical aspects and innovative gameplay don't have to be mutually exclusive. What will sell is something about which you can say "buy this because you've never played something like this before AND it's pretty." Nintendo has to make it clear that [i]that[/i] is what their approach is. Because Animal Crossing didn't sell THAT well, either.

[QUOTE]The next generation will be interesting, particularly in Japan. Because we'll really see if the various companies involved can break the indifference that is holding the market right now.[/QUOTE]
I don't think it's really a console that would do that. I think it's a game. And I'm gonna keep believing that until it turns out that the next Zelda is in fact not as good as Ocarina and I'll have nothing to make my point with at all.

[James]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade']Well duh, I don't know why you think I thought the piece was meant for anything other than fun speculation. It couldn't have been anything else. But to me, there was no point to the article other than the actual facts you provided (what Nintendo's investing in in terms of R&D), that's all. I don't care for speculation myself.[/quote]
[color=#707875]Because you were saying that it was a "bunch of BS", which it isn't. It's a speculative piece, based on research and investigation. But you don't like speculative articles, which you could have just said at the beginning. lol

So yeah, that's sorted.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
That's a different marketing approach, but I'm not sure it's any more sound (at least the way you put it). Good technical aspects and innovative gameplay don't have to be mutually exclusive. What will sell is something about which you can say "buy this because you've never played something like this before AND it's pretty." Nintendo has to make it clear that [i]that[/i] is what their approach is. Because Animal Crossing didn't sell THAT well, either.[/quote]
[color=#707875]This is [i]exactly[/i] what I'm talking about when I say that people misunderstand Nintendo's strategy.

Nintendo is not saying that they are going to ignore beautiful graphics. Instead, they are saying that they won't focus [i]entirely [/i]on beautiful graphics.

There is a key distinction there, between the two sides. [/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
I don't think it's really a console that would do that. I think it's a game. And I'm gonna keep believing that until it turns out that the next Zelda is in fact not as good as Ocarina and I'll have nothing to make my point with at all.[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Yes, exactly. And that's the whole point.

It's the [i]game [/i]that will help to turn around the industry. But how do you deliver games? Via a console.

If you can create a console that provides a framework within which you can provide new styles of game interaction, or new types of gameplay...then you are free to create a broader variety of game software.

So, the point is that right now, even the "big name" titles aren't selling very well in Japan. The games alone -- at least at this point -- aren't creating much of a response from the market.

Sony hopes that the excitement of a console launch will help to shift things along (via PS3). Nintendo believes that companies cannot rely entirely on the excitement of new product launches -- they need to consistently provide fresh ideas to stimulate a pretty flacid market.

So I would say that there are many subtleties in each approach. But it is Nintendo who are generally misunderstood, because they are the ones who are moving in a different direction. The problem is that many people automatically interpret this as them saying no to online gaming, or no to beautiful graphics. But that is an automatic assumption, which bears no relationship to anything Nintendo has said.

This isn't to say that Nintendo is the be-all and end-all of the Japanese market. It's just that there is an interesting difference in strategy, which will play out over the next six or seven years.[/color]

[Guest ScirosDarkblade]

[QUOTE=James][color=#707875][color=#707875]This is [i]exactly[/i] what I'm talking about when I say that people misunderstand Nintendo's strategy.
Nintendo is not saying that they are going to ignore beautiful graphics. Instead, they are saying that they won't focus [i]entirely [/i]on beautiful graphics.
There is a key distinction there, between the two sides. [/color][/QUOTE]
Well, the thing is, when Nintendo releases a game that at once provides the innovative gameplay that they push so hard and can match FF for FMVs or Ninja Gaiden for in-game graphics, then they'll have done what I personally want of them. The thing is, Nintendo IS turning it into a compromise at this point. Just look at the DS. You want innovation, get DS. You want firepower, get PSP. In other words, while the DS might have the coolest-designed Zelda game ever (yeah, right), it won't look as good as games on a system [i]of the same generation[/i]. So even if making a compromise in this sense is not Nintendo's intent, it's really difficult to convince people otherwise. Does that make sense?

[QUOTE]It's the [i]game [/i]that will help to turn around the industry. But how do you deliver games? Via a console.[/QUOTE]
But it's the game that garners the company and industry respect. Not the console. Whether Nintendo's next console uses 30 stacked microprocessors or just some 2 GHz derivative of the G5, all that matters is how awesome the next Smash Bros. title is going to be.

[QUOTE]If you can create a console that provides a framework within which you can provide new styles of game interaction, or new types of gameplay...then you are free to create a broader variety of game software.[/QUOTE]
So is lack of variety the issue? Are players bored of what's out there? I don't think that's what it is. When people went crazy over a grown-up Link at Nintendo's press conference, it had nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with anticipation of, simply, an outstanding game. Halo 2 won't sell because it provides some fresh new way of gaming.

In any case, saying that the Gamecube/Xbox/PS2 are too restrictive for a new generation of quality games in terms of fundamental design is nothing more than a cop-out. Quality games are made by quality developers, period. Lack of quality games (or "blockbuster" games) means lack of good developers and/or marketing ability. It's not that the Gamecube is not wacky enough or something. I can see Nintendo trying this "different gaming experience" gimmick for marketing, but it says next to nothing about how enjoyable these "new" experiences are going to be.

[QUOTE]Sony hopes that the excitement of a console launch will help to shift things along (via PS3). Nintendo believes that companies cannot rely entirely on the excitement of new product launches -- they need to consistently provide fresh ideas to stimulate a pretty flacid market.[/QUOTE]
Heh. Do you know what would sell really really well? Like, really friggin well? A graphically overhauled Starcraft. Just have Team Ninja or some other developer good at pushing a console to its limits make the game look sweet as hell. Change NOTHING. Heck, they can take out the single-player campaign for all I care. Just have the game online-enabled and come out for PC/Xbox. As long as it's marketed by something other than a grizzly bear, it'll sell like crazy.
Eh, that's barely the point. But I think that it's not that the market's run out of fresh ideas. I think it's run out of good games as of late. Wind Waker and Ninja Gaiden were the last games I truly enjoyed (besides some PC games). And now I'm just twiddling my thumbs waiting for Halo 2, a game that has about as much innovation as Zelda has online capability.

[QUOTE]This isn't to say that Nintendo is the be-all and end-all of the Japanese market. It's just that there is an interesting difference in strategy, which will play out over the next six or seven years.[/QUOTE]
In the end, I think it comes down to making and marketing quality titles. Which don't need to be innovative.

[James]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Well, the thing is, when Nintendo releases a game that at once provides the innovative gameplay that they push so hard and can match FF for FMVs or Ninja Gaiden for in-game graphics, then they'll have done what I personally want of them. The thing is, Nintendo IS turning it into a compromise at this point. Just look at the DS. You want innovation, get DS. You want firepower, get PSP. In other words, while the DS might have the coolest-designed Zelda game ever (yeah, right), it won't look as good as games on a system [i]of the same generation[/i']. So even if making a compromise in this sense is not Nintendo's intent, it's really difficult to convince people otherwise. Does that make sense? [/quote]
[color=#707875]I understand what you're saying, but I don't think that your opinion reflects the majority of the market.

All you have to do is look at the Pokemon franchise. Here you have a series of games that has outsold many of the more "mature" and visually beautiful games out there. Why? Certainly not because it looks amazing. It sells because it's [i]fun[/i].

I can tell you right now, without a single reservation (and particularly in today's industry), that advanced graphics don't sell consoles or software. They just don't.

If that were true, then you'd have Xbox as the highest selling console, with GameCube in second and PS2 in third. But as you can see by the actual sales numbers, the situation is very different.

By the same token, GBA and GBA SP have outperformed the rest of the market, despite being "less graphically advanced". This is also true with Nokia's N-Gage, but in the reverse -- you have a system with supposedly-superior graphics to GBA, but which hasn't sold very well at all.

So, I think that's the underlying point. Nintendo doesn't need to convince gamers that DS has better graphics than PSP or any other system. They simply have to convince gamers that DS offers something truly new and unique, which they [i]can't get anywhere else [/i]-- that being the key phrase.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
But it's the game that garners the company and industry respect. Not the console. Whether Nintendo's next console uses 30 stacked microprocessors or just some 2 GHz derivative of the G5, all that matters is how awesome the next Smash Bros. title is going to be.[/quote]
[color=#707875]Yeah...but I think you're missing the point here. We are starting to go around in circles.

As I just explained to you, it's [i]not [/i]about the console. I already said that. lol

I explained that the console is a delivery device for the game. If the console itself is more flexible (ie: it offers two screens, or gryroscopic features), this provides a bigger table for developers to put pieces on.

Bear in mind that I'm not talking about hardware specs or processor performance in the traditional sense. I'm talking about how you can design new types of games, by creating hardware that facilitates those very games.

So, no, it's not about the hardware. It is about the games -- the games are what sell the hardware. However, you are going to need to engineer new types of hardware to deliver fundamentally new types of games. So in that sense the two are intrinsically linked.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
So is lack of variety the issue? Are players bored of what's out there? I don't think that's what it is. When people went crazy over a grown-up Link at Nintendo's press conference, it had nothing to do with innovation and everything to do with anticipation of, simply, an outstanding game. Halo 2 won't sell because it provides some fresh new way of gaming.[/quote]
[color=#707875]Again, you've kinda missed my point here.

First and foremost, I'm talking about the [b]Japanese[/b] game market. I mentioned that several times in my previous post.

In the Japanese market, even the bigger franchises (the ones that traditionally do very well) are having trouble in the market. The market has become almost completely flat. So, when even the most successful franchises in the industry are having difficulty selling, what do you do as a game company?

Rather than deliver the same core gameplay with a shiny new package, you try to create [i]new [/i]core gameplay. That's what Nintendo is doing.

Your comments about Zelda and Halo are kind of erroneous for two reasons; firstly, you're talking about the reaction to Zelda at E3. You may not be aware of this, but the media at E3 [i]always [/i]cheer like crazy when [i]anything [/i]is unveiled. These people would attend the opening of an envelope, if it included Nintendo's logo on it.

Secondly, the Halo reference is kind of moot, because I was talking about the Japanese market, not the American market. [/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
In any case, saying that the Gamecube/Xbox/PS2 are too restrictive for a new generation of quality games in terms of fundamental design is nothing more than a cop-out. [/quote]
[color=#707875]I never said that, nor did I imply it...so I don't know where you got that from.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
Quality games are made by quality developers, period. Lack of quality games (or "blockbuster" games) means lack of good developers and/or marketing ability. It's not that the Gamecube is not wacky enough or something. I can see Nintendo trying this "different gaming experience" gimmick for marketing, but it says next to nothing about how enjoyable these "new" experiences are going to be. [/quote]
[color=#707875]But what's your point? You're going way off track here.

Firstly, I never talked about a lack of quality games. I just finished telling you that even the big, quality, blockbuster games aren't selling as well as they usually do in Japan.

So, even the "good" games aren't having the same impact. Why? Because, as Nintendo suggests, people are no longer as fascinated with gorgeous graphics as they once were.

Does this mean that people don't like nice graphics? No. Nintendo is not saying that, nor am I.

Secondly, I never mentioned anything about the GameCube "not being wacky enough". I can't tell you how much you're misinterpreting my comments here. lol

And thirdly...I have two responses. One, the "new experiences thing" is most definitely not a gimmick. Nintendo is hedging its entire future on its ability to create entirely new types of games -- as opposed to rehashing existing gameplay concepts.

If you look at DS itself, for example, I think it would be difficult to call the DS a "gimmick". It'd be difficult because if you did that, you'd essentially be going against [i]everyone [/i]who tested the unit out at E3 (even the somewhat anti-Nintendo media) and you'd also be going against the tide of quality developers who have an interest in developing games for the platform.

Nintendo aren't just testing out this approach because they can't make quality games or something -- I don't know where or how you managed to take any of that from any of my comments. lol

Nintendo is taking the approach because they want to reinvigorate a flat Japanese market, and because they want to expand the market itself (and their market share), by introducing new elements to gaming that haven't previously existed.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
Heh. Do you know what would sell really really well? Like, really friggin well? A graphically overhauled Starcraft. Just have Team Ninja or some other developer good at pushing a console to its limits make the game look sweet as hell. Change NOTHING. Heck, they can take out the single-player campaign for all I care. Just have the game online-enabled and come out for PC/Xbox. As long as it's marketed by something other than a grizzly bear, it'll sell like crazy.[/quote]
[color=#707875]If the game is truly fun to play and if it's marketed well, it will have a better chance of selling well. Whether or not it "looks sweet as hell" makes very little difference in the Japanese market -- and not much more in the US market. All you have to do is look at software sales data, really.[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
Eh, that's barely the point. But I think that it's not that the market's run out of fresh ideas. I think it's run out of good games as of late. Wind Waker and Ninja Gaiden were the last games I truly enjoyed (besides some PC games). And now I'm just twiddling my thumbs waiting for Halo 2, a game that has about as much innovation as Zelda has online capability.[/quote]
[color=#707875]I think the main point here, is that when I talk about "innovation", I'm not talking about innovation for innovation's sake.

I mean, I'm not saying that if you attach a plastic hand to the top of the GameCube, you'll sell more units.

I'm talking about [i]true [/i]innovation, as it relates to the product quality. The word "innvation" means that you're introducing something totally new; you're setting a precedent. That's what Nintendo wants to do with DS and its next generation console (and even with games like Donkey Kong's Jungle Beat, which was insanely well received at E3 this year).[/color]

[quote=ScirosDarkBlade]
In the end, I think it comes down to making and marketing quality titles. Which don't need to be innovative.[/QUOTE]
[color=#707875]Nobody is saying that these games "need" to be innovative. But at the same time, "making and marketing quality titles" is too simplistic a statement, if you want to get serious about it.

As I have mentioned numerous times, the "making and marketing" of quality titles in Japan has still failed to move the market. What do you do when the market is not very responsive, even to [i]truly high quality [/i]games? You have to find another way.

Clearly, the United States is a different market. In America, innovation is less important, because many gamers are happy to buy pretty games that are still awful (just look at Enter the Matrix as an example).

However, this does not mean that Nintendo should be criticized for trying to innovate and push things forward. Without that said innovation, many of today's standards would not have been established (everything from the D-Pad to dozens of other items).

If we simply sit there and say "I'm happy with the status-quo, by all means, don't innovate...I don't need it", then nothing will ever happen. Without innovation you won't have new types of games, you won't have new concepts in games and you won't have anything that feels fresh. Everything will feel the same, but it might look a little prettier year on year.

And basically, that strategy isn't something that can or will sustain the industry in the longterm. Innovation is critical, now more than ever.

Whether or not DS is going to be a success is a different question. And whether or not Nintendo's broader approach will be a success is also another question.

But that's not what I'm trying to answer. I'm simply explaining Nintendo's position as it stands currently. And as I've said, this discussion is a really significant example of how their position is misunderstood in a larger sense.[/color]

[BlueYoshi]

[quote name='ScirosDarkblade]Well, the thing is, when Nintendo releases a game that at once provides the innovative gameplay that they push so hard and can match FF for FMVs or Ninja Gaiden for in-game graphics, then they'll have done what I personally want of them. The thing is, Nintendo IS turning it into a compromise at this point. Just look at the DS. You want innovation, get DS. You want firepower, get PSP. In other words, while the DS might have the coolest-designed Zelda game ever (yeah, right), it won't look as good as games on a system [i]of the same generation[/i']. So even if making a compromise in this sense is not Nintendo's intent, it's really difficult to convince people otherwise. Does that make sense?[/quote]

[color=teal]There's nothing wrong with having good graphics and decent gameplay, but what you're trying to say goes against Nintendo's strategy in whole.

The time for putting graphics over gameplay has come and gone. What you're saying reflects the marketing stature of the Xbox from when it was first released. Nintendo are trying to turn away from that habit by putting innovation first, and the DS proves that fairly well. The GameCube may not have sold as much as Nintendo had planned, but they're still doing well enough for themselves to make it into the next generation unscathed.

MS are under threat because they're going to have two systems out at the same time, where one may reach break-even by the end of 2005/beginning of 2006, and the other will receive constant pressure from the PS3 and Revolution. So the problem here is that MS will still have to concentrate on the Xbox to make up for its losses while Xenon will already be out and about. Not a nice position to be in.

It would be unwise for MS to follow that stratagem again, so my point is that Nintendo will need to rely more over on innovation and not graphics if they want to stay ahead of the game. The same can be said for PS3 in a way, though it's uncertain what Sony are planning right now.

I don't think it'll mean much for Nintendo if a DS Zelda game won't look as good as it would on the GameCube or Revolution, though. Considering the DS's features, I think that a Zelda game would work far better on it than any other platform because of the many different dimensions it can be seen from. The two would pretty much be feeding off eachother in a way.

By the way, I found some pics on what the PS3 may or may not look like. I can't say if they're fake or not since I got them through google, but some of them are pretty bizarre actually.

[img]http://christian.vaullerin.free.fr/en%20mega%20vrac/sam%20of%20ps3.jpg[/img]

Don't mind the Same Fisher lol.

[img]http://www.lightsounduk.com/ps3.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.horae.dti.ne.jp/~swim/ps3.jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.nikush.com/bhav/PS3/PS3%20Mr.%20Gullick%20(01).jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.nikush.com/bhav/PS3/PS3%20Mr.%20Gullick%20(02).jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.nikush.com/bhav/PS3/PS3%20Mr.%20Gullick%20(04).jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.nikush.com/bhav/PS3/PS3%20Mr.%20Gullick%20(05).jpg[/img]

[img]http://www.nikush.com/bhav/PS3/PS3%20Mr.%20Gullick%20(06).jpg[/img]

I have no idea about the last couple. I saw them on another forum and just decided to post them for the hell of it.[/color]

[natetron46]

i like the second picture, and that seems to be the most realistic choice for sony to make, thats what i will be expecting to see, but you never know. the last model was ridiculous, it would cost like 200 to produce each one.

[BlueYoshi]

[color=teal]It looks like a space ship heh. Those last few don't look official but I think the motive of whoever created them was just to give some idea of what the interior could possible be like. I don't believe them as of yet though.[/color]

[natetron46]

i highly doubt those pictures are official, they look like they were made in photoshop. i like the idea, but as i said before, i doubt sony would embrace something like that. too bad though :)