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]."

Comments

He's got a point

[NanoGator]

" I think that, clearly, the improvement in graphics and presentation by the systems is reaching diminishing returns. We've talked about this before, but the reason for a consumer to buy the next generation of hardware, for many of the competitors, is not going to be because the graphics are prettier. It'll ultimately come back to what is a unique gaming experience."

I think he's got that point nailed. Every generation, the artists have fewer and fewer limitations for creating realtime 3D graphics. We're at a point, even today, where the artist's style and vision are relative easy to achieve. How can the next generation of graphics be to the GameCube what it was to the N64? Beyond a few more polys and real-time shadow casting, not a whole heck of a lot. Whatever happens for the next systems, there's got to be a new dimension of gaming.

Nintendo's aware of this. And since it's not so obvious what the next breath-taking move is (i.e. with the N64, it was faster frame rates and higher resolution) I'm damn curious what Nintendo comes up with.

Re:He's got a point

[Anonymous Coward]

You know, just as a reeeeeal off topic note, the other day I was playing Wind Waker and was guiding Link up a slope. I had the quick thought to stand Link parallel to the slope and see if one of his feet would go through the ground or stay in the air. I was rather impressed to see that his knees were bent properly, the way you would expect them to be, and there was no "through the ground" action.

Like I said, waaaay off topic, and not even really what you're talking about, but I thought it was slightly neat when I saw it.

Re:He's got a point

[PainKilleR-CE]

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.

I think people keep thinking this and keep saying this, and it keeps not happening. When I loaded up RE: Code Veronica on the DreamCast and it transitioned from the intro to the game I sat there and waited for the intro to continue because the graphics quality didn't look like what I expected from an actual playable game (and wasn't discernable from the intro). When I loaded up Soul Calibur the first time on my monitor it was eye candy for days (and was so good that it's hard to tell that Soul Calibur 2 looks better). Amplitude amazes me with it's ability to put flashy graphics (though admittedly low-poly, it still looks good and you don't really notice that polygons aren't a limiting factor) mixed with real-time video (in the backgrounds of most arenas) and have very precise gameplay that requires synchronizing the input to the music and what's seen on-screen.

Ikaruga made my jaw drop in more ways than can be explained.

It's not just about how many polys you can push, it's about what you do with the graphics capabilities. In many ways, US game developers have been pushing too much towards realism in the graphics, when it's some of the most unrealistic things that make the graphics so amazing in some games.

Plus, as long as game developers feel the need to put pre-rendered graphics into their games for any reason, we still need to increase the power of the graphics systems. The difference in some games gets less obvious over time, but in others is still glaringly obvious, primarily because character detail is limited to make a more believable environment, or vice versa. I'd have to say this is where Nintendo has the real advantage, because of all developers they have the tendency towards making the most cohesive environments, where the style of the character matches the environment best, where there isn't a clash between the two constantly pulling your eyes towards the technology rather than the game.

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.

Halo gave me some drooling moments, but I don't think I saw FFX before I played Halo. KOTOR has had some truly beautiful scenes, as well, despite many people saying it's graphics aren't that great. Not to mention that even PC games are pushing beyond the capabilities of the consoles, although they still have options to drop them down to lower detail for systems that can't handle them (though in terms of resolution support PCs have almost always been beyond consoles).

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.

I think those particular leaps actually tended to be mitigated by later titles in each cartridge generation using cartridge-based hardware to increase the capabilities of the consoles. SMB3 was certainly an eye-candy-fest that made the NES nearly comparable to the 16-bit generation, especially since Nintendo was so late to the 16-bit table. The real difference seems to be that in the past the hardware was extended by adding new graphics and sound chips to the cartridges, whereas today people have to squeeze more out of the same hardware when they make games later in the g

Good plan

[The_dev0]

We see people buying it for $99 as a second system

I reckon this is an excellent move, as all the nintendo fanatics bought one in the first few weeks, but this allows them to get a chance in the homes of those with a PS2 and/or XBox, and let the games do the talking.

I think Nintendo is taking the right steps to disprove the misguided notion that the GCN is a kiddie's system, and for 99 bucks, a lot more people would take an interest. I could definitely justify buying a PS/2 for 100 bucks with a couple of titles, and the same goes for the XBox. I reckon Nintendo are counting on people buying a 100 buck GCN, one or two of their really huge titles, and giving any financial loss on the discount back to the big N in game sales.

yep yep yep

[Anonymous Coward]

Historically game console sales have always been driven by realtively few "must have" games. The SNES sold because people WANTED to play Super Mario World, and especially Street Fighter II (before some smart ass goes and says that the Sega Genesis had SF2 also, you're right and wrong. SNES had a long exclusivity period, and this really boosted sales. Eventually the Genesis got SF2 Turbo.)

To a large degree Sonic was a "must play" on the Genesis.

What are "must have" games these days? For me, there are few if any games that I'm really itching for like I did back in the day when I wanted Super Mario World and SF2. The closest thing to a must have today is Half-Life 2. Am I just getting old and jaded? Or are games just not as fun anymore?

Re:yep yep yep

[metallicagoaltender]

For me, there are few if any games that I'm really itching for like I did back in the day when I wanted Super Mario World and SF2. The closest thing to a must have today is Half-Life 2. Am I just getting old and jaded? Or are games just not as fun anymore?

A little from Column A, a little from Column B...I've found that the attraction I had to video games when I was 7 - 12 years old isn't what it was, but games like Vice City, Half-Life 2, Max Payne 2, etc. still deserve anticipation and excitement. It's just in an entirely differetn context. When I was 9 years old, all I had to worry about was a page of math problems, a 3 paragraph essay, and then I could get ramped up about gaming. Now, it's worrying about meeting project deadlines at work, bills...life in general. The excitement is still there, it just doesn't take up as much energy as it used to.