ATI Touting 3D Gaming Chip For Cellphones

An anonymous reader writes "According to their website, ATI have just announced a new 3D game-orientated chip specifically designed for cellphones. The Imageon 2300 'offers the first hardware 3D graphics implementation in the handheld space... [and] also represents the first OpenGL ES 1.0 compliant device on the handheld market'." The ATI release mentions "...that wireless gaming is on the rise and will generate USD $1 billion in wireless gaming revenue by 2006 for wireless carriers in the United States", and it's interesting to note the TapWave Zodiac Palm-based gaming device already has an earlier ATI Imageon chip in it.

Comments

Why gaming?

[dstillz]

Shouldn't this thing be used for a wireless, 3D map service, or other, more useful applications? Mobile phone gaming isn't nearly ready to compete with Nintendo, and small screens aren't appropriate for 3D games.

And isn't it time to retire the "-eon" suffix?

Re:Why gaming?

[Ayaress]

The other thing is that 3D on phones ends up being a catch-22, which is why I figured back when it was announced that the N-Gage was not going to make a splash, but more of a loud plunk followed by the sound of crickets chirping.

For one, you'll never be able to hold a candle to the GBA for a long time. Nintendo has made some blunders with the GameCube, but they havn't missed a beat with the GBA.

For two, as soon as you start basing your system on graphics (The GBA is mostly 2D and mode 6 fake 3D, so its games have to market more heavily on gameplay and other aspects - Nintendo has a good track record with making low-end graphics compete successfully against high-end graphics. PCs far outclassed the SNES/SFC for most of its life, but the SNES even gave the PS1 and Sega Saturn a run for their money in Japan before the N64 came out) people look at it, and say, "Psst. My PS2 has far better graphics." Don't even try to bring up the, "Yeah, let's see you stick your PS2 in your pocket and play on the bus" argumentwith them, becuase it doesn't work.

My theory on gamers is that we're broken into three classes:

Eye Class: What some people call graphics whores. Sometimes I think they'd play XtremE Couch Sitting 2004 if it has good enough graphics. Unfortunately for RPG and strategy gamers, this is by far the largest group of gamers there is, and the group responsible for video games passing from the playthings of techies, nerds, and geeks to the mainstream popular culture, and it's their wants that hold the highest sway over the gaming industry in general.

Brain Class: Those people who wax nostalgic and call videogames the next form of literiture. Mostly play RPGs, but usually look for strong plot and character in games, and will readily sacrifice graphics, sound, even gameplay in some cases for that experience. This is the dominant group you find in discussion boards for old game systems like the SNES, and contribute more than any other to the "immortal games" that still get played a decade or more after their contemporaries pass into obscurity.

Endorphin Class: The people who just want to have fun. They may appreciate plot, or like graphics, but when it comes down to it, it's a game, and they just want to have fun. Gameplay is key, and will excuse poor graphics or lack of plot. I tend to lump sports gamers into this group, since most of them I've known are after the "___ball experience." Also, most young gamers will fall into this category, and my nephews have just as much fun goofing around with my old Atari as with their own PS2's, which gives me hope that they won't turn into Eye Class gamers in the future.

Now the problem with making a handheld system and basing it on the cutting edge 3D graphics is that those cutting edge 3D graphics are still pretty crude. By talking about graphics graphics graphics graphics graphics, you get the attention of the Eye Class, and may even deter the Mind and Endorphin Classes from looking at the system. The Eye Class sees it, and decides (rightfully) that it has crude graphics, and rejects it, and the system flops (a la N-Gage).

Nintendo has the right idea. They go for the Mind and Endorphin groups, and GBA games either emphasize storyline, character, and even cloaked commentary, like the RPGs that fill GBA racks, or just sheer fun, like most of the platformers. They havn't wasted their time squeezing half-assed 3D out of the GBA, because it won't really help their games.

how about this

[xenophorm]

how about instead of trying to improve graphics, they try to improve reception and signal clarity. I can't use my cell phone (which is still on the market), inside houses that are very close to towers. i mean seriously, who the hell cares about gaming this much to prefer that the space inside these phones be used for gaming rather than phone purposes.

Games as Art and Games as Entertainment

[Ian_Bailey]

I think you've mixed up what people appreciate with what period they appreciate from.

Really, there are two views of games. Firstly, that they are a form of art that is created and can be appreciated, and secondly, that they are form of entertainment to be enjoyed. These are not mutually exlcusive.

I don't agree that someone focuses on graphics or story. And I also don't agree that only the 'Brain Class' appreciated older games. You would be hard-pressed to find literary merit in Super Mario Brothers, and it probably is more of a 'fun' game, it is still appreciated on GBA's everywhere today.

I believe your "brain" and "eye" class are really just people who want to be amazed at the art, style, animation, music, plot and character development of a game. They all see games as a form of art, and can appreciate older games that had a signifigant level of art in them, like Final Fantasy (whether they be voice-acting, cut-scenes, or design).

Other people appreciate the gameplay, and the entertainment value. These are your "endorphin" class, and are mainly focused on how a game plays, the controls, etc. But they to can appreciate the simplicity of Pac-Man or Super Mario Bros., and how fun the controls are.

Of course, most people probably fall somewhere in the middle. I imagine the majority of the market lies fairly close to center.

And you're right, Nintendo often doesn't see games as art. Miyamoto often thinks about gameplay first, and then constructs a world around the idea. Silicon Knights though, especially Dennis Dyack, sees the game as art, and have dedicated themselves to raising that bar. The trouble is no-one exists on these ends of the spectrum. Super-Mario Sunshine didn't have revolutionary graphics or story-line, and Eternal Darkness was often over the heads of most gamers.

If you look at the popular games, it's clear they fall in the middle: Sports games, GTA, etc....
They are all stunning in terms of graphics, sound, but they are all also very fun to play.

Re:Games as Art and Games as Entertainment

[Anonymous Coward]

(Ayaress, this computer won't let me log in for some reason)

Actually, I'm doing everything I can NOT to distinguish them by what period of games they enjoy, with the exception of the "Eye Class," but when you are looking at graphics - and yes, most gamers DO look at graphics more than anything. Look at any major gaming site to see that - the old games just don't have them, except for those cutting edge games from three years ago that are still comparable to today's graphically average games.

Also, I never said that only Brain Class gamers are the only ones that can appreciate old games, and would only appreciate certain old games. Super Mario Brothers or Sonic the Hedgehog really wouldn't appeal to them as much, but Endorphine gamers would. They're just plain fun, even if there isn't really any substance under the surface.

I never said that only Brain gamers see games as art. I said they're the ones that see games as literiture - eye gamers would probably equate them more to movies or television. But every true gamer, I think, sees games as some level of art. If you don't see art in them, odds are you either don't want to, or don't understand just how sweepingly broad the concept of art is.

All that said, the best games do not all fall in the middle. Nearly all console and PC games definitely have something there for the eye gamers, but many games don't fair well with that kind of players.

Taking in your argument, Final Fantasy games have, since FF6, had very good graphics compared to "the herd." However, they get outsold by FPS games because a great many players don't want all the plot and cutscenes you have to keep track of in an RPG - and if they miss something important while clicking past voice clips or text boxes, they can end up completely lost in the game, which is what turns most people off of RPGs (Although RPGs like Diablo 2, which gut out the story and character development, tend to sell accross a wider range of players. The system is familiar enuogh for RPG (brain class) players, but simple enough for the easy carnage that FPS (eye class) gamers enjoy. The last few Final Fantasy games have appealed more to eye class gamers for various reasons, but the long-time Final Fnatasy fans have drifted away from the series, saying the newer releases (FFX-2 being one of the most maligned since FF8) are "pandering to graphics whores" and "throwing out everything that made Final Fantasy so great." Fallout went through a simmilar thing, when Fallout Tactics angered many Fallout 1/2 fans, and has sparked to wildfire even in FT fans with the upcomming Brotherhood of Steel for the consoles, and got even worse when Fallout 3 was cancelled, which fans of all three previous games were drooling to get their hands on.

Funness (endorphine quality) is inependent of graphics (eye quality) and story/character/etc (brain quality), which is why I said the endorphine players can typically enjoy any genre of game, or games from any time. They are the "middle" ground, but I think there's something fundamentally different in how they view games from how eye and brain gamers do. If you make a game truely fun, somebody will buy it. It may have lousy graphics, it may have nonexistent storyline. It may have nothing going for it but sheer fun. The vast majority of GBA games fall into this category. Their graphics aren't all that great, and both eye and brain players are constantly giving GBA games bad reviews because of their low graphics quality, cliche or unimaginitve storylines, or unoriginal feel - ignoring the fact that many of them are the funnest games they've ever played. All too many reviews can be summed up: "This game is really really fun, but (...the story is just like ever other RPG ever || ...the graphics look like something off the NES). Score: 3/10."

Getting back to the point, the games you mentioned - I'll use GTA as an example - are very fun. However, most games fall either into the eye or brain categories, funness is something else entirely.

(A