Slashdot Mirror
Nintendo's Iwata - Innovate or Die
Linker writes "CNN/Money has interviewed Satoru Iwata, where the president of Nintendo Ltd. says the gaming industry is in the midst of a crisis of innovation, which could lead to its demise. The idea, of course, is to justify the existence of the upcoming Nintendo DS, but Iwata does point out that the gaming market in Japan has been shrinking in the past few years - and the U.S. and Europe may do so soon."
Why do I suddenly have this mental image of a swarm of bees chasing down a game designer?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
I grew up playing video games (mostly during the winter months). I had a Coleco, NES, Genesis and later played a lot of PC games at college. (Doom, Quake, etc). Looking back at it now, I just can't believe I wasted as much time as I did.
Things are even worse now that games are getting to be so complicated. Unless I can pick up a game, figure it out in 10 minutes, I don't want to play it. I refuse to commit large chunks of time to games anymore. Which is why I still play Tetris and all the classics on a Game Boy when I have a few minutes to kill on a commute or something.
It seems like the lack of innovation has simply spawned more and more complicated games that people don't want to bother with.
I've been thinking about the new DS for a long time and haven't thought of many gaming methods to take advantage of the dual screen. Alright, this is off-topic.. Anyway - the donkey kong mario racer game that the last pic showed had your location on the track... big deal... the next innovation for them should be making the gamboy thinner with a larger screen, not fatter with two.
mix_master_mike
vafrous
I dont play any more console games cause they just plain suck. I dont care much for the improved graphics if the gameplay is horrible and rehashing another horrible game yet again. I would rather play a text game on my palm that's fun than play some impressive looking game that sucks.
Sweet merciful crap! If it wasn't for these games, nobody would have wanted to grow up to be a game designer and create some of the games we see today. Some of those kids' parents need to just slap those brats across the face!
Reminds me of the scene in Back to the Future II, "You mean you have to use your hands? Aww, that's a baby's toy!"
Hmmm.
.. would be releasing Animal Crossing in Europe. For some bizarre reason this Sims-meets-the-fuzzy-wuzzies game has been released in Australia but never over here.
Frankly, I think it's great that the game industry (at least Nintendo) is trying to innovate itself out of this potential problem.
Yay free market.
I'd like it even more if certain other industries could be made to feel this same pressure.
What does he mean there's no innovation in the game industry? I mean, looking at my shelf, I've got Madden 2003, Gran Turismo 3, Tekken 3, Onimusha 3, Super Mario 3...Oh, wait, I think I get it...
Then I thought wow Microsoft has been releasing a popular game for years, and nobody realized it. No I'm Not talking about Flight Simulator. I am talking about THIS
What's the fundemental basis for each console generation.
1st Generation Consoles - 2D
2nd Generation Consoles - 3D
Each generation defined a genre of games that eventually saturated the market. Having the 2nd generation recede is not that surprising. The question will be "Who will invent the next unique genre of games that spurs the market once again."Most companies won't though.
Pushing the same crap over and over is fairly risk free.
God knows I own every Zelda game (excluding the 3D0 crap).
Sigs? We don't need no stinking sigs!
Innovate or Die huh?
Just give me those good ole days of a pocket full of quarters from pretending I'm collecting for Jerry's Kids and then blowing it all on "Skate or Die".
Nintendo should be innovating on their software rather than their hardware.
How many more times are gamers going to tolerate Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Donkey Kong sequels before giving up on those tired franchises?
Seriously. If the 'big gaming company' took more risks (hell, they are big enough to take risks) on innovative games instead of working on sequels to games or the latest shooter, the gaming industry would be more exciting.
Instead, we are fed the same old games.
But can you blame them? Works in hollywood like a charm.
Good quote, too many chars. Seriously, the slashdot 120 char limit sucks!
This is why all the new innovations are geared towards handheld devices. For over a decade Nintendo has been pushing handheld devices which really did not live up to the technology of the time. Their leadership in the market enabled them to curb innovation. But I view console gaming to be like the Slam Dunk Contest in the NBA. It's all been done, what else is there?
Iwata does point out that the gaming market in Japan has been shrinking
Iwata does point out that the NINTENDO gaming market in Japan has been shrinking
Yes, please mod down.. and quickly.
...Guns, Girls, and Graphics.
This is the formula used (depressingly successfully) by many game companies nowadays. Everything else can be sacrificed by these three.
GUNS: Actually, violence in general. More violence is good, but quality ("realism", meaning extra gore) can make up for a lack of quantity.
GIRLS: The more women and the less clothing, the better. Any kind of implied sexuality is better than nothing, however.
GRAPHICS: Photorealism = good, any other graphics style = bad. This is mostly an extension of Guns and Girls, since "realism" (actually pandering to a perverse fantasy, but your average gamer has a hard time telling the difference) is key to these areas.
These three factors contribute to what is sometimes called PPLQ, "Perceived Penis Length Quotient". The higher the PPLQ, the better the game will sell, because it is perceived as a Manly Game. Nintendo's problems as of late stem mostly from the fact that it refuses to satisfy PPLQ, under the deluded impression that innovation and gameplay are actually important to the average modern gamer. Thus, we get games like Final Fantasy: Crystal Chronicles and The Legend of Zelda: the Wind Waker, games doomed before they ever hit shelves because they were not deemed Manly enough.
Unless EA cripples for some mysterious reason. People will buy trash, and eventually they will get sick of it. It's the normal cycle in any model.
Except I would have to agree that innovation is key to my own future interest in terms of videogaming. This generation of console has done so little new to impress me that it's depressing. Kudos for the couple of Wario Wares that occur here and there though. Simplicity is underrated in today's videogames.
But I'm still not undermining the greatness of a few games that barely innovated. Refining an existing formula and thus making it much better is often just as rewarding as something that is completely new. But then again, there haven't been too many of those either.
Maybe the videogame industry will wake up and realize that originality is the way to go! Oh, wait, no, false alarm - they've just announced another six Army Men games hitting the Gamecube.
I mean look, their built their success on great game names like Mario and Zelda back in 1981, and since then, they've...
Nevermind...
from the article: "Dance Dance Revolution," which U.S. officials strongly resisted bringing over from Japan, has proven to be a lasting change to gameplay.
then it doesnt say why they resisted it. And who the officials are.
slashdot: where everyone yells sarcastic metaphors to themselves to understand the issue
Take a look at a game made by, say, the Gamecube, the Xbox, and a PC. Quick, which one looks the best?
Now, odds are you'll say "The PC". Which, at $1000 - $2000 for the hardware, that's certainly true.
For the Gamecube and the Xbox, the systems are pretty well matched. From what I've seen, the Xbox can do lighting better thanks to the shaders, while the Gamecube seems to have better anti-aliasing (take a look at Super Monkey Ball 2).
Fast forward 18 months when the Xbox 2, PS3, and Gamecube 2 come out, all with chips made by IBM, 2 of which have chips made by ATI. Now which look better?
Once we reach a point of technical ability, all of the consoles will start to look the same in graphical and processing power. So then it's going to come down to one thing:
Who has the better games?
PS2 still has the most, though I imagine most PC developers will continue the trend of "PC/Xbox" hybrids (though with the Xbox 2 it will be curious to see how possible this will still be, though XNA should help with the tranferral).
Nintendo at least is trying some new things. Using a stylus to "draw" Pac-Man on a screen, or to "shoot" in Metroid. Or using Congo drums for a Donkey Kong platform game (and, of course, the upcoming Donkey Konga itself).
Will most of these works? Probably not. There's a good chance that most people will think that playing a platform game with drums will suck donkey balls (pun intended), or that drawing on a screen won't be fun. But in an a realm where Final Fantasy XII seems to play like Final Fantasy XI only with a blond in a hoochie skirt (for Pete's sake, woman, put on some tights and have some dignity instead of letting it all hang out like you're going to walk down Prostitute Avenue), and every first person shooter looks the same, it's going to the ones that are different that will pull it out.
Personally, I'm betting that the Xbox will continue to be big on the FPS and Sports games, PS2 will rock the RPG and "everything else", while Nintendo will grab those "Games you must have or die" kind of things (Nintendo, new Mario, and of course GBA games).
I'll withhold judgement on Nintendo's innovation until I see sales rise (remember the lesson from SEGA: different doesn't always mean $$$), but if nothing else, you've got to give them credit for at least doing something different than the other guys.
52 Weeks, 52 Religions with John Hummel
its great that Nintendo is really trying to do this, because they have been one of the largest victims of this anti-innovation, perfect example being their relentless release of mario-themed games. (i know its practically their mascot, but maybe its time for a new one...)
Don't you mean "release your old hits again and again on new platforms"? I can already see the dual-screen versions of Super Mario World, Link to the Past and Metroid.
Skate or Die! Die! Die! Die! Die! Skate or Die!
Memories become legend, Legend fades to myth, and even myth is forgotten by the time that age comes again.-Robert Jordan
.. how difficult can English be? *ducks* Seriously, though, the Australian version at least could be released in the UK, which would boost the Gamecube's performance here.
Brain-wash the masses into believing that minor improvements (aka new design for controllers, etc) are really great
~*~ ~*~ ~*~
yes, girls read /. too...
It's tough for developers to sell a new innovative game because few publishers want to take the risk. It is much easier to take a successful franchise and develop sequel after sequel.
... ie: All of EA's sport franchises.
Rinse, lather, repeat
Chewie does not get a medal. Come on, George. Can a Wookie get a medal?
The current crisis in the gaming industry does not surprise me. Today, games are primarily a product, not an entertainment. It costs a hell of a lot of money to develop a state-of-the-art game; this leads to a lack of creativity, since it is cheaper to rely on tried and true gameplay concepts than to innovate. With innovation, there is always the risk of people not accepting it. However, this leads to many similar games, people get used to this similarity, and become even less tolerant to new concepts. At the same time, the technology advances, games become more complex, costs raise etc. I guess somewhere in there the industry lost the concept of joy. A game is .... well, a game! :) A game is supposed to be funny. I think things changed when the CEOs and lead designers in the game companies were no longer creative minds who created several games before (like Sid Meier), but managers and professional designers drilled to create "an economic and reliable video game product". And hey - I'm sick of playing games that feel primarily like a product, and not like a game.
This sig does not contain any SCO code.
I doubt EGM did anything more useful than taking out their old GameBoy and handed it to some editor's kid. This is going to be somebody who is throughly spoiled when it comes to the games they get to play. The latest releases on the latest hardware. Given that, no wonder the kids "mocked the tittles mercliessly". Not to mention if they put that on the cover how many more copies are going to be bought up by older gamers who may not have even like the rag to begin with.
the gaming industry is in the midst of a crisis of innovation
Two words: online gaming
If we continue down the same path as we have in the past, people may become tired of gaming
In economics they call this Diminishing Marginal Utility. The more you consume something, the less gain you experience from consuming one more unit of that thing. To combat this, marketers need to offer you something novel. I don't know why anyone would think that video-games are imune to this...
I'm tired of seeing shitty games get rehashed and released, especially those based on movies. Since GoldenEye the Bond series has died; Since MegaMan 5 (hell, even earlier) the MegaMan series has had mild additions; Since Street Fighter 3 Alpha.... Since Mortal Kombat 3... Have any sequels had any success beyond bearing the name-sake? I'd say Final Fantasy, but there's only been one true sequal out of that series (FFX-2), and it's a crime there hasn't been a FFTactice-2 yet. But even looking at this from a hardware prospective, not much has changed, just things got a little faster, a little prettier, a little flashier, a little more exspensive.... It's just the same shit, different logo.
How to Speak Leet
At first I thought this was a sequel to the old "Skate or Die" nintendo game.... I guess in this version the boss would be a pointy haired boss.
To be honest, for a big part i would tend to agree with Mr Nintendo. While Half-Life 2 and Doom III do sound promesing, most games are boring and bad rehashes of old concepts; Gets real old real quick.
However in my experiance it's not all about innovation such as adding camera's and microphone's to games, or inventing new game styles. However Open Ended game play does make a huge difference. (I lovingly call non open ended games 'Walking thru a cave with pretty new paintings on the wall' now.. just running the pre-dermined path untill you reach the end)
Open ended game play such as Morrow Wind and Operation Flashpoint made those games hugely enjoyable and long lasting for me. While neither concepts were 'new', being able to walk around, make your own path to the goal, determine your own side quests.. Really made me love spending countless hours in those games, and even re-playing them several times!
Personally i hope that that will become a new trend in games, not a new bell or whistle
When a company's financial situation is worsening, one tactic is to make it appear that it is the market as a whole that is suffering or shrinking and not the particular company's individual performance. Its a simple play to artificially hold up your company's stock, or at least drag everyone else down with you. You'll find that many American publishers have just announced significant profits for this past fiscal year or for the coming fiscal year while Nintendo posted their first quarterly loss in decades.
All I have ever said, and have been brutalized repeatedly for on this site, is that the American/Eurpoean markets are different from the Japanese. It is easy to show that the gamers have different tastes, a number of recent slashdot articles have proven that, and that the Japanese market is shrinking overall while the western markets continue to show growth. As soon as NoA starts treating American's as special again (as it did with the significant difference between the NES and FamiCom) they have a chance to recover. If they continue resting on their laurels and giving us the exact same hardware and software as is released Japan, their western market share will continue to shrink until they are totally irrelevent. My prediction all along has been the fragment of the market into one worldwide success and a different second place in Region 1 and 4 from Region 2. If the current trend continues the big winner will still be Sony, with MS and Nintendo ceasing to compete directly and each taking second in different parts of the world. The only question in my mind is will Nintendo be too stubborn to port their software to Playstation or Xbox when the Americans finally boot them out of the hardware business.
With new games like Doom 3, Halo 2, Half-life 2, and Duke Nukem Forever, we'll have games to look forward to for at least the next decade.
Seriously, though... handheld gaming consoles suck - they can't compete with normal consoles for games or playability. Nobody wants to sit and play GTA3 for a hundred hours on a Gameboy-sized console.
Consoles can't compete with PCs, either. With a PC, you can upgrade the hardware or buy new games for your existing hardware (and try to get them to run). Playability for Halo on XBox is damn near impossible for someone who's grown up with mouse-look (for keyboard only control!) PC games.
The market will turn, rightfully, to PC games - and the subsequent mod scene (Counter-strike, for example).
Comment removed based on user account deletion
pong->wolf3d->...->remakes->sequels->...->huge_gam e_worlds_no_loading_screens+photorealistic_graphic s_in_games->universe collapses->the end.
versions of solitare can be made? Video games just aren't that much fun it if they don't dump a cup full of quarters occasionally. And the free drinks don't hurt either.
What?
I think Penny Arcade hit the nail on the head in their article on the recently launched City of Heroes, when they said the game had plenty of depth, but lacked width. That is the increasing problem with electronic games; they may be complex, but they lack any real sense of immersion. Goto area A, fight monster B, retrieve item C, rinse and repeat. It's the same formula we've seen a million times before, only with a shinnier wrapper and new kung fu grip.
I think someone should tell Dr. Gupta's secretary that they've been transcribing from a GameSpot interview with Michael Pachter, instead of the great doctor's notes. Whoops.
I guess where the problem lies is that once something captures the market, everyone wants to cash in on it. Look at the Medal of Honor series of games. It captivcated the market with not only it's awesome graphics, but also it's accurate storyline and plot. Now look at the market today and even at E3. There are just a TON of war games out there now. From Vietnam to WWI and II and now I'm even seeing more of the Iraq war scenes.
Sequels can be good, but for them to be successful you need to find that "thing" that made the first one so great. Whether that be keeping the plot accurate, or incrasing the graphics potentaial or even adding more "touch and feel" for the gamer. There was just somethign about the first one that made it excel in the market, and for others to do the same it needs to capture and re-sell that same feeling.
Hmmm.
It's like this: Developer platforms are the problem. Much innovation was created by reinventing the tools everytime they made a game. Its alot like the loss of innovation that occurred in typing or writing many versions of a page of a book verses typing and deleting on a computer. The process of doing something over and over again allows your brain to rework the problem and come up with better solutions.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
In the Saturn and dreamcast ereas we saw some of the most innovative and fun games ever -- Sega had to put out fun games they couldn't compete on anything else. But then Sega got crushed by nintendo and sony who were pumping out the same games we played last year but with better graphics and more advertising. To be honest I really haven't been all that interested in games since the dreamcast died and I am not surprised the industry is hurting now. I don't care what your advertising budget is or how many polygons your GPU can push yesturday's gameplay is still yesturday's game!
...almost like the Borg of the gaming industry.
Just look at the development houses it has swallowed up, Maxis, Bullfrog, Westwood... and the games that they come out with now (more Sims anyone?).
Are you local? There's nothing for you here!
puny humans...still haven't mastered the ability to not perish
Maybe if the MPAA adopted this line of thinking they could come to terms with the fact that they arn't as profitable as they want to be because they hock out rehashed garbage instead of blaming it on piracy. (Something that no doubt the gaming industry has to deal with just as much if not more so.)
Really?
It's like this: Developer platforms are the problem. Much innovation was created by reinventing the tools everytime they made a game. Its alot like the loss of innovation that occurred in typing or writing many versions of a page of a book verses typing and deleting on a computer. The process of doing something over and over again allows your brain to rework the problem and come up with better solutions.
Developer platforms are created to allow the game designers more creative control over the game design but in reality they wind up taking away from it because there is very little struggle involved in the creation of the game. All the innovations and breakthroughs occurred when programmers had to struggle against hardware requirements to make the consoles do something. This is no longer the case.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
The DS features two screens, one of which can act as a touch screen, which is incorporated into games.For example, Sega had a Sonic title on display at the show, where Sonic's rate of speed was dependent upon how fast you could move the stylus (or your finger) back and forth across the bottom screen. [...] Making those changes, Iwata feels, is the only way to keep people from getting bored.
This is not a visionary article about the future of the gaming industry. It is an article about a company trying to sell a handheld gaming device with a touch screen.
-- Enditallnow
dude, you wrote this much and only got a 1:informative...
you suck
you make a point, a good example is super smash bro's malee(sp) simple stupid when you think about it but so much fun. do think it's not what we think but our geeneration. As a child I was a gamer holick archade atari, SNES I would have easily let my life drain away if my dad didnt' step in. Now i'm a dad and I can't understand the addiction my son has even though I myself was addicted.I think the problem has to do with game costs. Kids who are the main players simple cant' afford $50 a pop games. anything below $50 ist' worth it. I remember buying solaris for atari for somethign like $11 dollars which was my allowance
Consider Battle Raper or Des Blood 4 from Illusion-soft. These titles combine all three Gs fairly well, however neither one is marketed outside Japan.
u cts/adult_win_jp_hk/de s_blood4/des_blood4.htmlp roducts/adult_win_jp_hk/ba ttle_raper/battle_raper.html
http://illusion.jp
http://shop.himeya.com/prod
http://shop.himeya.com/
the industry has been pumping out shit games en masse. Nintendo itself isn't doing anything that different either. I hope they can play by their own rules.
Specifically an industry founded on "flashes in the pan"
I think the industry is getting to a phase where they can't rely on the latest and greatest to justify selling their games at enormous prices.
Prices need to be lowered on games as do development cycles, its inevitable. Someone will eventually come along and say "We're sticking with this engine and going to churn out 1 game every 6 months for $20 bucks a pop"
The future of gaming is going to be about selling the story, not the technology.
Remember the Virtualboy? The 3d gameboy that was out briefly? It was ahead of it's time, and the technology used didn't really give the best picture, but it was a 3d experience and it was definitely fun.
Now that we have better technology, isn't the market ripe for something like this again? I know I'd go out an buy one.
The current portable offerings are not really that interesting. I can play most of the games at home, on a big TV. I want something with a coolness factor, not a worse experience than I get playing games on my big TV.
Need Free Juniper/NetScreen Support? JuniperForum
Matrix 3 "bombed?"
Sorry, but it did far from bomb. The two matrix sequels were filmed together for a budget of $200 million. That's pretty expensive plus a marketing campaign of about $50-75 million for the two. However, Matrix 2 has taken in over $281 million in the USA alone, covering the costs of both movies (that is WITHOUT dvd/vhs/tv rights sales). Worldwide, it has taken in $457 million.
Therefore, by definition, ANYTHING matrix 3 made was in essense a profit. It was impossible to bomb as the movie was already in the black (i.e. proifiting). That being said, Matrix Revolutions has made $285 million worldwide (again, minus dvd, tv, tie-ins, etc).
If that's a bomb, then that's a bomb i'd love to be responsible for...
It's almost repeating to an exact year.
1984: Game industry is bloated with too many consoles with too many accessories created ahead of demand (Intellivision2), the same games being re-branded and resold, too many boring tie-ins (E.T.), and a saturated market that was fed up with it.
Result:
Industry colapses.
1994: Game industry is bloated with too many consoles with too many accessories created ahead of demand (Sega Genesis, 32X, CD, Saturn, Game Gear), the same games being re-branded and resold, too many boring tie-ins (Captain Novolin), and a saturated market that was fed up with it.
Result:
Industry implodes.
2004: Game industry is blaoted with too many consoles with too many accessories (PS2 + HD + Network card + microphone + eyetoy = Jesus Fucking Christ!), the same games being re-branded and resold, too many boring tie-ins (Fight Club, the game?), an a saturated market that is getting poorer every day thanks to these wonderful tough times.
Result:
Who knows, but you can bet your buttons that the Nokia nGage is going to die.
Well, maybe it won't happen till next year. But sooner would make such wonderful symetry.
Don't Crease the Weasel!
The majority of the lack of innovation is the fault of publishers. If the games not following market trends then they're not interested.
Innovative ideas are too risky for them, expansion packs and sequels are far safer bets for a publisher than an innovative new game and the key word these days is franchise.
Just like the music industry the distributors have taken us this way, not the artists/developers. It's about love of money, not the love of what you create.
I was just thinking about this the other day.
how, since SEGA (who have been the leg-up for innovation in the gaming industry) stopped making consoles, we havent seen any attempts towards any next-generation systems, only little plastic boxes that hook up to the TV.
Now the DS is coming out, which may start a future of systems that can easily replace the systems that hook to TV's (though I dont see it happening)
but it throws the handheld market out of the repetitive 2d-only market.
Now there's the PSP, but I honestly wouldnt want to buy that, it's neither innovation, or really something that can be called handheld or portable.
all it is is a PSone with games that are incompatible with all of sony's other products.
the only selling point is the mp3 player, which will attract the sony fanboys right away. but you can just buy a psone with a monitor, and you got a fairly portable system, with pre-existing games.
The DS will have its own games, yes, but they'll have their own unique features that take advantage of the DS' power, people may make fun of the DS, but it's a system with a hell lot more innovation and potential than anyone has done to date, and is something nintendo hasnt done before to date.
but with all that, we need more innovation, and the only real innovator left is nintendo, really.. Sony just copies the innovation and adds a tacky feature here or there to make it sell like hotcakes. and Microsoft.. well we dont need to go there. Sega and nintendo used to be the main innovators back in the 90's and now that Sega no longer makes systems, it's really up to nintendo now to do it, or else we're facing a dark age for console gaming. Because if Sony and Microsoft get their way with the industry, console gaming will mostly die for the most part. and any innovations will be minor details, nothing new, since they wouldnt have competition except each other, and they leech, so nothing would really come up.
I say, go nintendo.
but honestly I think that there hasn't been a fresh new game type in a really long time.
I really think the last truly innovative game type may have been the Battlezone remake of 6 or 7 years ago. That was an evolution of game types.
Since then, all we've gotten are refinements on the typical, RTS, SPRPG, MMRPG, FPS Shooter, and F/TP Adventure games.
Yeah, it's disappointing; the good doctor is a known troll, but he's been slipping lately. Some of his earlier trolls were damn fine works of art.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
imho this will hurt nintendo more then it will help, due to three things.
1.the mic being used as voice recognition.
2.the touch screen.
3.decent versions of both the voice recognition and the touch screen will put the ds far above the $99 most of there systems are now.
i use touch screens at work and they are far from being good enough for gameing, they repeatedly act like one touch = 3 or more. as for the voice recognition who wants to spend a half hour teaching the thing to get there voice to work on the game?
Unfourcently those two items provide it with it's only advantage over the other handhelds, i don't count the dual screens because it will hurt gameplay more then the system. who wants to play a fps where your oponent knows exactly where you are? (look at the metroid screens)
I haven't been more disappointed than I was in Super Smash Bros Melee in a very long time. I heard such great thing about it, and as soon as I got a GC I went and got it used for like 20$ and it was a HUGE waste. what a piece of crap.
I am ashamed to admit it but I spent most my GC time playing Mario Party with my GF.
Imagine simulating a hallucinogen trip while playing a tetramino game. This is TOD.
The new versions of it are cool as well
Except avoid anything marked "Tetris Worlds".
The problem is that gaming today requires so little mental participation. Why? Well, way back before 3d, video games were subject to a kind of forced minimalism.
These often super-deformed, highly-pixelated video game protagonists of yesteryear required imagination to make them real. It was up to you to interpret what was happening. When you played Dragon Warrior, or Final Fantasy, you had to imagine your charactor hacking away at some dragon/imp/whatever.
You had to picture what he/she looked like, what their weapons resembled, what motions they used to strike and evade enemies. Like reading a book, you were forced to create a mental image of what was happening, since the game itself could not. That's what made it still interesting to play through Castlevania for the 30th time. This was pretty much true with all genres.
Now, the platforms video games are delivered on do that for you. Graphics, sounds, voices are all presented to us with a quality approaching that of movies. We're spoiled on it. The problem is, we're that much more separated from the game itself. Playing most video games now involves little more mental involvement than second-guessing contestants while watching "Jeopardy."
To solve this, innovation is needed, not just of storylines (sorry, but even the storyline to MGS is about the same level of some cheesy Navy Seals Adventures-type paperback) but of the delivery platform itself. Kudos to Nintendo for attempting innovation in this manner.
I like to play games on my PS2. Being a girl, I really don't like the "popular" categories of Guns, Driving, and Sports. I'm not into real violence but I like a challenge.
It takes work, but it is possible to find creative games from companies willing to put out something somewhat unique. Kya: Dark Lineage is a good game from Eden with fighting, puzzles, and stealth. Sly Cooper (Sucker Punch games) is an awesome looking game also involving some intelligence to get through.
I am disappointed in most of the sequels they are putting out now. The original Jak & Daxter was a fun game, but Jak 2 and the rumors about Jak 3 follow the formula of guns and hijaking vehicles. Yawn. Sure it's safer to crank out a tried and true character sequel, but at least put some thought into what the gamer wants to see. However I will not expect it to change, and I'll keep up my feeble search of quality games.
Gupta, buddy! How ya been? Better practice the trolling a bit more often, as you're getting a bit rusty.
Anyone who doesn't know this guy yet, read his post history, or check here. Known troll who always falsely claims to be working at Nintendo, Sega, etc.
This is a completely bogus claim. As we should know by now, because it's been said a billion times before, games today are just as magical as the games were to us when we were there age. These kids will grow up eventually, have kids of their own who will have their own hardware and games, and will "mock endlessly" their parents toys. It's just the differences in generations, and things appear far different when you're first introduced to them rather than years down the road.
That is why kids today compare things like Tetris to the games they first played (final fantasy XXV, Metal Gear Solid 2, etc. etc.) which obviously have more glitz and glamour, and they take what they're familiar with over the other, older titles.
Just thought I'd mention this. I hope you're not giving your child the same allowance you had. You may not think 25 years is a lot of time, but inflation over that span has had quite an effect. Your $11 in, say, ~1980 would be worth almost $30 today. Considering that all but a few top sellers fall to $40 or $30 within a few months of release, this is hardly too expensive for your kid, assuming you've kept up with inflation on his/her allowance.
There is also a small but active movement in the industry to release games with $20 price tags, although it's mostly in the computer software market. It it true that ValuSoft and their ilk have given this price range a VERY bad name, but things are improving as more competitors enter this market space.
There are also notable instances such as Croteam, the creators of Serious Sam. They told the gaming community that Serious Sam would retail for 20 bucks on release, and make up for the price in volume, and it seems to have been successful.
Man is the animal that laughs.
And occasionally whores for Karma.
Somehow, I don't think Nintendo should be pontificating about the whole industry; they should be focusing on their own selves.
The only thing Nintendo has going for it is the Gameboy line. And now with Sony gunning for them with the PSP, they are in serious trouble.
The DS is all about gimmick (VirtualBoy?). Personally, I haven't bought a handheld since the Atari Lynx because none of them have been as innovative since then. However, I am attracted to the PSP. I'd also venture to say that there is a majority of gamers who own PS2s and Xboxes who do not use portables. The PSP is going to target them, and hard. I do believe the PSP will fail as an iPod killer, but for games (if the games measure up), it is going to be a big success.
The smartest thing Nintendo could do is take a cash prize from Sony or Microsoft to exit the console business altogether (ala Sega) and focus on porting their great platform titles to those systems. There simply isn't enough room for 3 consoles in the American industry; time and time again this has been proven:
*Atari (2600/5200) vs. Intellivision vs. Colecovision
*Nintendo (NES) vs. Sega (SMS) vs. Atari (7800 and XEGS)
*Sega (Genesis) vs. NEC (TurboGrafx16) vs. Nintendo (SNES)
*Nintendo (Gameboy) vs. Atari (Lynx) vs. NEC (TurboExpress) vs. Sega (GameGear)
*3D0 vs. Atari (Jaguar) vs. Nintendo (N64)vs. Sony (Playstation) vs. Sega (Saturn)
*Sony (Playstation - and the PS2 on the horizon) vs. Nintendo (N64) vs. Sega (Dreamcast)
*Sony (PS2) vs. Microsoft (Xbox) vs. Nintendo (GameCube)
*Sony (PS3) vs. Microsoft (XboxNext) vs. Nintendo (GameCube2)
This translates to Nintendo being beaten out the door in the next generation console race and facing a decline in their trusty Gameboy franchise. They should take the sensible road instead of trying to fight a trench war against Microsoft and Sony.
"Right now, somewhere in this world, Scott Baio is plowing a woman he doesn't love," - Peter Griffin, *Family Guy*
Eventually it will peak off and PC games will forever be at the bottom.
If Half-Life were a console game from the beginning, would there have been a TFC or a Counter-Strike or any of the other popular user-created mods? How can a team of console owners make and distribute mods for, say, the new 007 game for Xbox?
In terms of the age of the population, which is most likely to play games, Mexico has among the youngest populations. So it is potentially a growing market. Are any companies targeting Mexico?
In this sense, it comes as no suprise that they find Japan, the US and Europe with a declining market.
People just aren't taking any risk on new intellectual property (IP).
Could it be at least in part because they're afraid of subconsciously infringing somebody else's copyright? George Harrison got bit in the butt.
And so what Disney did was it didn't make R-rated moves.
Bullshit. Look at the Kill Bill movies, produced and published by Miramax Films, a division of The Walt Disney Company.
Or do you mean only the Walt Disney Pictures division? After The Lion King, the mean quality of WDP's in-house productions has gone downhill fast; at least Treasure Planet, Brother Bear and Home on the Range have bombed at the box office, and so did The Alamo. You may counter with Finding Nemo, but Pixar has announced it will dump Disney after the two more movies in its contract.
So what does WDP do? Sequels. Apart from Pixar, WDP is making money off Winnie-the-Pooh sequels (The Tigger Movie, Piglet's Big Movie, Springtime with Roo, etc) because it managed to buy enough senators to get Pooh's copyright (and thus Disney's life-of-the-copyright exclusive license) extended twice. See also this partial list; one reading that list could almost imagine the sequels popping up like the cliche badgers.
the most innovative game I saw was Destroy All Humans, which is destined for failure. But it is a very clever to twist everything so that you're actually an alien shooting people. It'll never sell, because it's over-the-top violent.
Gee. Tee. Eh?
"Consider this: Older gamers have fond memories of games like "Tetris," "Space Invaders" and "Pong." But when Electronic Gaming Monthly magazine put them in the hands of a group of 10-13 year olds last year, the results weren't pretty. Rather than seeing the games' charms, the kids were bored - and mocked the titles mercilessly."
Kids naturally rejecting old things and lust after new things.
Back when the above-mentioned games were new, kids were probably bored by pinball, air hocked and board games. To get a kid interested in something, you have to provide a hell of a lot of context, or they need a hell of a lot of imagination.
Quoting from the article:
While there were some very promising titles on display at this year's show, there were very few games that were truly unique. Most, instead, rehashed familiar genres, tossing in a few new elements or simply polishing gameplay.
If you take out the "simply polishing gameplay" phrase, this statement would apply to movies as well. Most movies are pretty much just rehashes of existing concepts, with different actors and special effects. Yet, the movie industry thrives and makes billions of dollars.
So my sense is that the game industry isn't going anywhere, it's just maturing as a creative medium. That means that, over time, you're going to see less innovation, just like you do in most creative media. Doesn't mean people are going to stop buying.
This sig has been temporarily disconnected or is no longer in service
while Nintendo posted their first quarterly loss in decades.
I think the word you were looking for wasn't "decades", it was "ever". And while they are of course trying to hold up their recent loses in a positive light, the overall game/console sales in the Japanese market has declined. Even Sony has felt the burn in that respect.
Nintendo is having problems not because of the localization thing, but because they don't want powerful 3rd party developers and they do their damndest to keep those they do embrace on a very short leash.
Take GTA3, sold more copies than grains of sand on the beach right? But if you add up all the crap 3rd party stuff released on the PS2 you will see that GTA3 is not even 10% of all the software sold on the PS2. What does this mean? It means that there are people that will buy anything, even what you or I may think is crap, not because they are stupid but because given a large enough group of people, there is a good chance that someone will like your game.
More selection equals more games that any given person is going to want, and this equals more systems sold. Nintendo (and MS to a point) are in a spot where the 3rd party shovelware makers are not all that interested in porting to their system because they don't have a strong enough user-base to buy their games. MS kisses ass and throws money at the problem, and eventually this will work. Nintendo on the otherhand holds it's nose up and is content with their 1st party line ups.
I *just love* that picture of the old 8-bit NES controller. Brings back a lot of memories of SMB3.
Maybe you can link to a picture with the old Nintendo gun, used in Duck Hunt?
the last truly innovative game type may have been the Battlezone remake
Either that or Sony's Parappa the Rapper, which led to Konami's Beatmania and Dance Dance Revolution.
...because Japan's population has been shrinking. And getting older, on average. And that economic slump isn't helping things.
Until someone comes out with some real polling results, you can't say that the Japanese populace is becoming "disenchanted" with video gaming. There could be many other factors at work.
[PowerPoint] is a tool for capitalist presentation
Read Or Die sounds much cooler for the market. Just ask The Paper.
Lycestra
Does ebay's listing prove that Stamp collecting is more widely followed than video games?
Stamps has 152,861 lots listed
Video Games has 174,341 lots listed
See also http://www.allworldstamps.com/
The myth that the 3 Gs and PPLQ make a game a commercial success is perpetuated by the mistaken notion that all gamers are sexually frustrated teenage boys.
Instead, according to TechTV, the 5 most commercially successful PC games ever are:
5. Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?
4. Flight Simulator
3. The Sims
2. MP Roller Coaster Tycoon
1. Myst
Absolutely none of the three Gs anywhere on this list, unless you count rollercoasters breaking or blurry simulated nudity.
By contrast, BMX XXX only succeeded at being controversial.
Actually... I always figured Nintendo was trying to dominate the market where parents buy machines for teeny-boppers by making decent games which parents won't feel guilty buying.
don't forget Grand Theft Auto 3, despite the '3' in its name I think it was one of the most innovative games in recent history (Vice City was derivative instead, and San Andreas will probably be as well).
-- the cake is a lie
I would like to see, in the realm of PC gaming, a game that makes use, or at least allows a user, to use more than 1 monitor at once. Of course, the avergae Joe probably doesn't have 2 or more monitors but for those that do, it would come in real handy. I can imigine infinie uses for using 2 monitors and I think what Nintendo is going to do with two screen Gameboy will make this more clear to people the power of 2 visual output devices.
Imagine an MMO where on one screen is your view, another screen keeps stats, has other players views or multipple angles of battle. In essence, 1 screen keeps focus of the gameplay and another keeps track of stats, interesting things the user should have at hand among other things. The possibilites are left to the user. This can be expanded into the realm of just about any software and already has been for many years.
Not to mention for LAN's, having multiple monitors with your peers screen being sent to it greatly aid in many co-op games.
I understand not everyone has 2 monitors or n-monitors for that matter, but for those that do it could inspire new ideas never implemented and convince people to pick up another, possibly cheap, monitor.
"If you are a dreamer, a wisher, a liar, A hope-er, a pray-er, a magic bean buyer
I again find myself referenceing Uncle Orson. What about "The Game?" This is the type of game I would love to play. The game adjusts itself depending on how you react and it is different for everyone!
Don't waste time... procrastinate now!
My sister owns the Sims (the only game she owns), but I wouldn't call her a "gamer". The "gamer" demographic is changing, but it is still very young and very male, on the whole.
The commericially successful PC games you cite are games which happen to crack the market of the mainstream, normally non-gaming masses. They aren't first person shooters... they're sims, franchised games from other mediums, or puzzle games, for the most part.
One minor quibble: I think one of the G's (graphics) accounts for a lot of Myst's popularity.
But if you're making a first person shooter, RPG, action platformer, or something along those lines, you're targeting a more specific audience. If you're making a game like that, I think the 3 G's do certainly help your odds of a game selling well. Certainly it's not the only factor, but nor do I think it's a "myth", either.
Who Wants To Be a Millionaire?
I'm assuming that they're counting the number of copies sold. I have a copy of Who Wants To Be a Millionaire. I got it out of a box of cereal (I think it was Cheerios). I wonder if these were counted to the totals.
I think these attempts at innovation by Nintendo have more to do with internal company factors than truly revolutionizing the state of gaming. Like pushing the revolutionary GBA-Gamecube link, which IMO had more to do with Nintendo trying to leverage their handheld dominance in the console market (the results speak for themselves, maybe a couple of decent games, the rest being unlockable content that did nothing but force Gamecube owners to buy a GBA to play a Gamecube game.)
Nintendo sees the writing on the wall- they can't compete head-on with Sony and Microsoft (it's tough competing against a consumer electronics giant on one hand, and the Evil Empire on the other), so they are trying to change the game. Which is fine by me, it's just all the self-serving PR that annoys- Nintendo, the company that cares.
If Nintendo really wanted to innovate, they might have actually tried to enable online play with the Gamecube.
That being said, the Nintendo DS at least looks better and has some potential (but really so does the PSP to some degree). I look forward to seeing if any DS games are able to capitalize on the new hardware and really offer truly significantly new gameplay experiences. If those games don't come out, the DS dual-screen and touchscree will be all for naught, leaving the PSP with the significant hardware advantage.
I wish they'd release more of the old stuff, though I'm sure it's not worth it in terms of revenue and development costs.
-- $SIGNATURE
Is he doing this to be ironic? Who knows, it's still funny as hell.
...Nintendo just announced their 2005 line up, featuring Starfox 3, Metroid 5, and Zelda 11 for gamecube.
Here Iwata is saying "Innovate or die!," supposedly to justify the new DS system Nintendo put out. When I read this, I couldn't help but feel deja vu all over again.
To understand what I mean, you would have had to follow the Dreamcast throughout it's "life" as a system. When SEGA was to put out the system, as a company, it had to decide whether to try the old new system routine or to go third-party like it's current (at the time) president had wanted for quite a few years. SEGA decided to release the Dreamcast.
In order to sink or swim, they decided to break their internal development divisions out of the umbrella of SEGA and into their own companies, with the message of, "Make innovative games to stay afloat on your own or sink into obscurity and die." Thus the first-party software that SEGA put out on the DC was both innovative and ground-breaking. This thrilled hard-core gamers but scared the public at large. The public wanted nice, cozy game types that it was familiar with, and even if that was SEGA's focus, it still would have failed with the DC; contradictively, "same-old, same-old" won't sell well unless it is in an established series, and even then people would complain about it's lack of creativity and would have mediocre sales at best. Then again, that wouldn't have mattered much here in the U.S. anyway, as everyone seemed to just be waiting for the PlayStation 2 one way or another.
So to me, it sounds at though Iwata is echoing SEGA of the past, the SEGA who had to cut out all stops to try and make their company succeed, SEGA who had to drop out of the hardware business or disappear forever, the same SEGA that was recently acquired by Sammy Corporation. I only hope that Nintendo doesn't follow SEGA's suit.
Most men are not thought unwise until they speak.
that with all that IP protection out there, they would be innovating like crazy. Maybe they're too busy suing each other. No money left over for innovation anymore. It all went to the lawyers. C'est la vie.
What?
Well, I have a couple thoughts about why the video game market might be shrinking in Japan, and maybe sometime here. Lack of innovation. New gamers may find the same-old-shit interesting, but dudes that have seen it all (literally) are gettin' sick of it.
I realize that what constitutes a "video game" has been refined into genres over the years... but look at how many god-awful parodies there are out there. The problem is that it costs too damn much to make a video game of high calibre these days and by taking a risk you are potentially putting your game house out of business. The result is that there are mostly large companies doing games and by definition the big guys don't take a lot of risk. Sometimes, but not often. Small houses have to stick to the formulas and perfect them. That's great (I enjoy games that are definitions of their genre) but it gets OLD.
Case in point is the third person shooter. Dear god... we've DONE that. Look at how many games there are with essentially the same stuff with a few twists or different branding? With a few exceptions, the things you can do and achieve in your average FPS are unchanged from years ago aside from battling foul mouthed 12 year olds with a rampant case of A.D.D. on-line.
Look, I understand that the almighty dollar runs the show and I accept that-- but I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that most of the technical advances in graphics are slowing down. Until now, this was/is the primary driving feature of most games. Ask John Carmak, case he seems to agree. In the future, I think CPU cycles will be spent on better artificial intelligence, more creative playing scenarios, and more non-linear content. The seeds are there, I just don't see many of them being planted just yet.
I know we can account for the wild-cards out there. The folks that have just one genre they play the hell out of. I know I'm guilty of that... I'm particular to single player role playing games and platformers.
So, if someone from Nintendo wants to complain about the video game market shrinking in Japan, I have a few words of advice: stop making crappy esoteric anime FPS strategy games by the dozen. Seriously. And if the U.S. thinks they're safe, they're not. NEWS FLASH: We don't need one more friggin' basketball game. Nobody cares. Oh, and while I'm ranting why don't we shelve the terrorist/anti-terrorist FPS until someone can figure out a way to not make all of them absolutely identical.
"Politicians find new names for institutions which under old names have become odious to the people."
You might be joking, but I personally:
- would much rather have nudity in my game than violence;
- have never bought a game based on how "manly" it is. Look no farther than the absence of manly sports games and violence-centric games (OK, how'd GTA3 and GTAVC get there?) to verify that
- buy games because I think they'd be FUN as opposed to give the impression that I'm well-endowed (oh! That's how those GTA games got in there!)
Oh... and on the "Graphics" portion, I really have to wonder if you've ever seen a cel-shaded game (Sly Cooper, Viewtiful Joe). It doesn't have to look like meatspace in order to kick ass.
--
Me spell chucker work grate. Need grandma chicken.
One of the biggest things you can do is to support independent developers. There are a number of smaller developers out there that are trying to push the envelope in gameplay. Of course, with limited resources the smaller developers can't provide the flash and dazzle of the larger games.
I'm part of one of those smaller game development houses; we develop online RPGs. Our current game, Meridian 59, is a classic online RPG with open PvP. Yes, open PvP isn't for everyone, but many people wish to have this in their game. Our game is smaller and not as well-known as the larger online RPGs, but we get by.
Of course, the first reaction of most people is to judge the game by the graphics. Unfortunately for them, the graphics do not indicate the quality of gameplay. The combat is fun, there is not much of the "treadmill" you see in other games, and the PvP has been carefully balanced over the years. Meridian 59's gameplay is very fun, and we even charge less than most other games requiring no box purchase to play the game in the first place. But, people who judge games only on screenshots will never enjoy these finer aspects of Meridian 59.
Really, this is why many games go for the flash instead of substance; it sells more games. We're working on an engine upgrade to Meridian 59, but this is not going to affect the gameplay, it will only make the game look better in screenshots. And, we have many other upgrades in store as the game grows. However, think of the time and effort we could have poured into gameplay....
The point of this ramble is that if you want to see more innovative games, then start searching them out and playing (and paying for!) them. There are a number of great independent online games (I'm more familiar with them given that I work with online games), and there's a good number of quality single-player games out there as well. It's just a question of going a little bit off the beaten path and finding them for yourself.
My thoughts,
Brian "Psychochild" Green
MMO developer's blog
I had a great idea last night for a game. You run around through a city, break into houses, vehicles, etc, and simply steal stuff. You can break anything in the game, pick anything up, and set anything on fire. Everything has a flamability rating (what some posts on /. need..), and everything has value.. The objective of the game? To leave the city in flames, and be the richest man alive.
What sort of time scale is this guy taling about?
In the last few years we have seen plenty of innovation in my opinion.
Bump mapping and pixel shaders is one of the most important and noticable additions imo to games and it's fairly recent,
The havok engine in max payne II,
The rag doll system in hitman/ut2k3,
Vehicles in fps implemented (well) in battlefield 1942,
Natural selection successfully combining the rts & fps genre,
Deus ex successfully combining rpg and fps (ok ok this one isn't really new but I like Deus ex so i'm going mention it any way)
I'll grant that this year has been fairly dry, but it's only half over yet. If half life 2 and/or doomIII sees the light of day I'll bet they both show something new
The Sims, black and white, both innovative titles.
I don't feel that a large amount of sequels are a sign of no innovation. I think the industry itself is growing such that there is room both for new games and improvements on existing titles, Plus the whole Idea of a sequel is to add to the original, to me this implies that they are innovating something to add.
In terms of hardware innovation I think we haven't seen a great deal (not counting those cheesy bikes you see in arcades) but there is the eye toy, the ddr mats and now the DS. How long has force feedback been around for? I think that was the last other major innovation hardware wise.
Anyhow to summarise I am still a big fan of Nintendo and the DS. I think innovation is great and is certainly a precursor to success but I dissagree that the industry has ceased innovating.
People always moan about things were better yesterday. Time machines have rose-tinted windows. Or something. Point is, everyone always takes the most derivative games of today, and compares them to the best of yesterday.
Innovation? Nintendo has its share of innovations (WarioWhatever), but also its share of derivations (Mario Everything! Look, he's playing golf! It's Tennis with Peach and Yoshi! Etc.). But I could think of plenty of other innovative games. Grand Theft Auto, The Sims, Guild Wars... and lots of games in places you wouldn't expect (zone.com and Yahoo Games are making games mainstream in a way Pong would be proud of)... and lots of high quality improvements (Ninja Gaiden and Halo (mainly for co-op). People always compare Deer Hunter 3 to Space Invaders, and never City of Heroes to E.T.
The gaming industry has been in a "crisis of innovation" since the early 90's, when just about everything "new" became fighting simulations. Improved technology has led to the making of games that are more realistic and less imaginative...the end result being games that are much less fun overall for the general populous. That's why the Retro Series for Game Boy Advance is selling so well in Japan. I'd still rather play Super Mario Brothers than most of the spectacular looking crap that's released today.
Sweet merciful crap! If it wasn't for these games, nobody would have wanted to grow up to be a game designer and create some of the games we see today. Some of those kids' parents need to just slap those brats across the face!
You're an idiot.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
When I was a kid, me and my sister could play nintendo fine, but my mom simply could not. For a lot of people who didn't grow up playing video games, they're imposible.
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
How did this incoherent rant get modded 5?
autopr0n is like, down and stuff.
Nintendo is on a downhill luge almost as fast as Microsoft's flailing out of control bandwagon. Having two screens is innovative? All it does is take away the inlay of the mini-map and HUD and display it on another screen which sucks up power and battery time. If this is a stagnating gaming world's response to a call for innovation then I weep for the continuation of this now mass market. Innovation is like...DDR...the first MMORPG...bump-mapping...VMUs. Not this...besides, Nintendo already has something like this. If you have a GBA you can use it as a personal information screen while playing games...in essence if you have a GC, a GBA, and a link cable, you already have a DS. *golf claps* Yay for innovation... To me...it just seems like crap...that's all it is or will ever be. I'm only marginally excited about the PSP. It doesn't claim to be some big new uber-awesome Handheld. It just claims to be a sleek, small, extremely powerful handheld with long battery life. No cheesy gimmicks or flashy neon signs to try and draw you in. Nintendo is spiraling around the toilet right now...two things are going to happen...one is they'll get flushed...two is that they'll be too bouyant to be sucked down the pipes...either way they're still in a sewage system reeking of shit.
Real 3d games! 3d displays are already available. The big arcade companies should invest in 3d technology, bring it to the arcades, let the money flow in, revive the arcade industry, and then the home game market will follow.
Furthermore, how come no one has ever thought of a 3d cubic display ? each pixel could be a little transparent cube which, when electricity is applied to it, is illuminated and becomes non-transparent. With the current level of technology, it would be trivial to make it. There already are monitors with 2 layers of pixels. Current 3d displays are based on the rotation principle in order to construct 3d images; this is an expensive way of making 3d. The 3d cubic display would be much simpler to manufacture.
Just imagine the possibilities: all sorts of games in real 3d!
i used coleco, atari, handheld nine-ten-does, apple, ...
...
pc (286), super famicom, n64 (last)
what are these all missing? connectivity! single
player games are over. it's time the big telco
companies started offering more and cheaper bandwidth
so we can play against/with each other while on a bus
without having to pay 2 dollars per minute (more
like 2 dollars per hour!).
of course some console can share a monitor or CRT
for four players (mario cart on n64) but with a
resolution of ((380 x240)/4(!)) once you've seen
ut2003 on 1024x768 you'll never touch that game
ever again
so the future is grafix (800x600plus), portable
and WiFi. so i can "bluescan" the bus and play
Wipeout against a random guy on my way to work on
my handheld.
or the such.
A typical FPS that somehow incorporates 4D concepts. I don't mean crap like "portals", I mean literally defining a world that exists in 4 dimensions that you can traverse. Somehow. I have no idea what it would look like, but it sure would be trippy.
Granted, approximating 3D space on a 2D bitmap is already a hack in itself, but this is part of the challenge. Right?
A street fighting game that incorporates real fighting styles -- not just a topical ghist, one that covers all of the moves and forms in depth. Mortal Kombat Deadly Alliance was a step there and I found it extremely fascinating. Reduce the quantity of styles, increase the quality of the ones left, and pit them against each other. You should really see the strengths and weaknesses of Taekwon Do and how it matches up against Muay Thai. The game should be an advertisement of the martial arts that will encourage people to learn them, but it should still appeal to lazy fatasses who want to live vicariously.
I haven't seen a satisfying, mindless blow lots of shit up shooter in such a long time. All of them suffer from story/diversion-creep. I don't want to rescue hostages or wisely choose powerups or solve a puzzle. When I was playing games like Gradius and R-Type I only imagined how much they'd improve with today's badass hardware. No one's run with it. Make a 3D R-Type where you wind through organic mazes at guided high speed blowing enemies up as fast as you can. I want to be dazzled by insane special effects and I want my fingers to hurt from having to hit the keys so hard. If I can look away from the screen for three seconds and still be alive, the game is a failure.
A game that simulates movie-style computer hacking. There was an excellent independent attempt at this game and I forget its name, it might be neat to see more professionally done eyecandy. Something that represents the thrill of breaking into a system, finding what you're not supposed to find, and getting out. It doesn't need to be authentic, it just needs to capture the drama, the fighting against time, finding weaknesses in a system's defenses, the busting a fuck-it and just destroying a system that you've lost your patience on, whatever.
The myth that the 3 Gs and PPLQ make a game a commercial success is perpetuated by the mistaken notion that all gamers are sexually frustrated teenage boys.
Oh, not all gamers are sexually frustrated teenage boys. I'm fully aware of that. At the same time, the market of sexually frustrated males (not necessarily teenage) is big enough that if you go for them you're virtually guaranteed great success.
No one wants to aim for the top 5 most commercially successful PC games anymore. They did great, but all five of those games broke wildly out of the norm, and were enormously risky. For every game that successfully broke the mold, a hundred games tried and failed.
Corporations want a formula for success; a way to make money with very little risk. PPLQ is a working formula in the gaming industry, just like "bubblegum pop" in the music business is a working formula. And for those of us to whom the formula doesn't appeal, well, it just sucks to be us then, because our market is deemed too risky.