Slashdot Mirror
Harrison On Nintendo's Shortcomings, Hopes
Thanks to EGM for their interview with Nintendo vice-president George Harrison, discussing the current state of the GameCube, as well as plans for the future. Harrison is surprisingly honest, commenting: "I think we've had individual successes with things like Zelda: The Wind Waker and Smash Bros. and others. If there's a shortcoming for us on GameCube, it's not delivering enough consistent breadth and variety of software. That really is the key." He also explains the exact reasoning behind the GameCube's recent price drop: "We see people buying it for $99 as a second system; potentially someone who has owned a PlayStation 2 for three years already and know that they have another two or so years to wait [for the next console hardware generation]."
Sure for now the graphics look great. But then they also looked great a couple of years ago. Then new hardware came along and you went wow and promply forgot about how you thought the old games looked great.
Sure sadly an awfull lot of games seem to just use the extra power of the hardware for bigger textures and more rounded boobs. Doesn't mean you can't use it for different purposes. Like say populating a city with cars and pedesastrians for you to drive through? Notice how older games of this style didn't have civi cars? Why do think this was?
I don't think he meant that we've reached the peak of video game graphics, but rather that the next generation of consoles and possibly even the one after that aren't going to have that "HOLY SHIT THIS IS AWESOME!" factor that, say, the Super Nintendo did with you loaded up Super Mario World for the first time or the PlayStation had when you loaded up FFVII for the first time. You may see more objects, less fog, less loading time, etc. but you're not going to see something that really shocks you graphically like the games of the past have.
And to some degree, it's already true. If you played Final Fantasy X or Kingdom Hearts and then went to try out a beautiful GameCube or Xbox game for the first time, you'd probably have a "Wow, that's neat" sort of reaction, but you wouldn't have a spontaneous bowel movement or anything. Video game graphics will continue to steadily improve, but they won't feature the same sort of enormous graphical leap that you had between the NES and the SNES or the SNES and the PSX. It's the same situation that's occurring with storage. Right now, there's a little bit of a wow factor that such a large, beautiful game comes on one little GameCube disc instead of six PlayStation discs. However, as compression gets better and the available storage for games gets larger and larger (if, indeed, it needs to surpass the DVD any time soon), it's not going to be as surprising as that switch from six medium-sized discs to one miniature disc.
Xbox doesn't really has a vast, enormous variety of games. I must admit, there's Halo, but for me that's the only game I like playing on Xbox. GC has so many updated classics(Zelda, Metroid, Smash Bros., Resident Evil, F-Zero), new games, and most importantly, the fun ones. If you haven't seen Viewtiful Joe yet I highly suggest it (Cell shading rules and is ultra sexy). Not to mention that the Xbox will break my back if I try to move it, and the controllers are quite oversized for the average gamer (luckily I have large hands and it works out fine).
www.jeffgoldblumiswatchingy
To begin with, Sega is and was never nowhere near as big as Nintendo to begin with. The only reason Sega suceeded in the 80's and 90's was because they had several 8,16,32, 64 and 128 BIT gaming systems ending with the Dreamcast, and they had their own brand names like Sonic for example.
Seeing as the DC was the first 128 bit console it had actually beat out PS2/Xbox/Gamecube. Alas, seeing as Sega didn't do nearly enough promo and ad work on the DC, it died off and they decided to go into the software business for all 3 consoles.
Nintendo won't go the way of Sega, not since they've been around since the 1890's making everything from card games at first, then later arcade boxes in the late 70's and 80's, and then the NES from 1985 onward to today with the Cube.
You must master your joystick like a fisherman masters bait! - Gimpy
No, that's exactly on-topic, I think, or at least this subthread.
:-)
It's amazing how scripted 3D human movement is in 90% of games. Take Soul Caliber 2; during some of Voldo's victory poses (and you think they could take the time to do victory poses right, since they can be easily 100% scripted without interference from either player) his weapon passes right through the floor! That's just wrong. Essentially, what we need (well, not need, but it's a worthwhile goal) is "rag doll physics" in everything. Polygon/limb-specific damage shouldn't even be an issue. If a character walks, that should reflect his (or her) legs and feet moving against the floor, using the arms for balance...
it's going to be rough for a while, because suddenly walking and jumping go from easily recorded and replayed events to challenging AI problems (and if we're not careful, everything's gonna walk around like that Honda ASIMO 'bot) But I think just like N64 era games had "stairs" that were just hills with vaguely stair like textures, this gen's scripted movement will seem like an anachronism.
GTA has started to address this, at least in terms of car physics. Despite the fact that it has special camera angles (and behaviors?) for certain jumps, all the vehicle stuff is based on an essential core physics model. GTA is also interesting for overlaying a scripted adventure on a world that doesn't feel like it's exclusively been created for the player...although RAM limitations means vehicles and pedestrians aren't nearly as persistent as they should be, and it's not like a UO virtual economy or anything, it has the flavor of a 'real', persistent, and self-consistent place. With absolutely NO traffic laws
SO YOU'RE GOING TO DIE: The Comic for Dealing with Death
So not only is your argument flawed - a company can survive by just selling to a young demographic - but it's also wrong in assuming that Nintendo only makes games for 10 year olds. Super Smash Brothers, Mario Golf, Metroid Prime, and Zelda all appeal to gamers over the age of 10. I own GTA III but don't need to be able to shoot hookers in order to enjoy a video game - sometimes just rescuing the princess is enough. I always find that the mature gamers who say that Nintendo has kiddie games and they will only play GTA III-like games are the least mature gamers.
I hate liberals. If you are a liberal, do not reply.
Good to see that acceptance of the truth is begining to leak through the denial. The online capabilities have been a big selling factor for the XBox, even though most people don't use it. PS2 is holding steady, they've got online play although not out of the box. GameCube however has been getting slammed by the press and message board junkies for their lack of online support.
It doesn't matter that most people won't use the online capabilities much, they still buy into the hype. If someone thought that two consoles were equally valuable for the price, and then you added online capabilities to one and not the other, that would probably influence their decision.
Plus of course there's always the gap between impulse and follow-through. Even if someone is never going to do much online play, they might like to think that they will. I'm a friendless geek (well, not entirely friendless, but all my friends who play games live in other states, so close enough =) but i'll still let multiplayer capabilities of games influence my purchasing decisions. I'll be more likely to purchase a game with cool multi-player aspects in the vain hope that i'll find someone to play it with sometime.
This Space Intentionally Left Blank
Nintendo was never the only game in town and has always had to fight. First they had to knock off Atari (easily done because of the gaming bust in the early 80s), then they had to fend off Sega (which really meant they tied with them between the SNES and the Genesis). The break with Sony (imagine if that project had come through - GTA on the N64 and the GC?!?!) and the stupid choices made for the N64 is where they stumbled, and that stigma has affected the GC. The GC is definitely a more balanced system (do you see a Pikachu edition of the GC?), and there are more games on it for 30-year-olds than 10-year-olds. I think many people are starting to notice that.
When you consider that the Famicom has been around for 20 years now, and that the GBA is as readily available as water, you have to admit that Nintendo isn't going anywhere. They're the only ones to have lasted this long. Atari's gone, Sega's out of the game, 3DO is dead and buried and Bandai is almost out of the running. So people may buy a GC as a second and not primary console - that's okay! Once they've firmly established themselves in second place (and, remember, we're talking in the US, not worldwide), then they can start working on how to take the top spot again. this is precisely where Sega fell apart. They were so focused on taking the #1 spot that they didn't focus on the places and things that mattered (the DC is a great system, it's just missing a lot of great exclusive games...sort of like the Xbox). Nintendo is looking at bettering itself step by step. Not a bad idea, really.
There may come a point where there is not a console being developed by Nintendo, and we all have to admit that, but when that happens, it just means more creativity going into handheld gaming. :)