Slashdot Mirror
Best and Worst of 2005
Next Generation is running a piece looking into the five biggest mistakes made in the gaming industry this year. On the other side of the coin, via GameSetWatch, an MTV News look at the finest moments in gaming in 2005. From the NextGen article: "And what did it turn out to be, this so-called Revolution? A GameCube in overdrive with a controller than can tell where you are and what you're doing with your hands. That was worth it, wasn't it? Not only that, but Nintendo has stated up front that they will not be competing with the likes of Microsoft's Xbox 360 and Sony's PlayStation 3. Rather, they'll focus on gameplay. Graphics won't matter if you just focus on gameplay. If you believe in Nintendo, clap your hands! C'mon everybody! Clap louder!" I link to em'. I don't say I agree with them.
1) Hot Coffee
2) XBox360 Launch
3) PSP Launch
4) Madden Next Gen
5) Revolution
For reasons, RTFA, but it's pretty bland. #4 turns out to be about bullshots and how the XBox360 game is, apparently, worse than previous generation console versions. The Revolution was covered in the write-up, and the rest are basically self-explanatory.
Right now, I spend most of my time playing a 2D MMO called Nexus, which only recently got a graphical update from 640x480 to 1024x768, and many of the game textures haven't been updated. In fact, the framerate and gameplay are still identical, and when you walk around, the camera moves in increments of exactly 2 pixels, because that way, it moves exactly as many frames per second as it did in the old version.
So, I want you to understand that I am not a complete and total pixel whore. If the game is good enough, I'll play it, no matter how old the graphics are. I've even had some fun with text games, occasionally.
First of all, and this is the obvious one: Graphics are easier than gameplay. I applaud Nintendo for trying to innovate the gameplay, but remember -- if I learned to play Half-Life back in 1995, I know almost all the gameplay elements I need for any FPS today. If I played Halo, I know just about all the gameplay I need to know for any console FPS today. When Halo 3 comes out for the 360, I'll be able to sit down and play with a minimum of memorizing new controls and honing new skills, because I played Halo 2 on the Xbox -- but Halo 3 will look incredible.
I have no doubt that it'll look incredible. Remember the Halo 2 cutscenes? The ones that showed you what they wanted the rest of the game to look like? The ones that still lagged quite a bit on the original xbox? Now we'll get those, only more so, and with no lag at all, and during actual gameplay.
But let's look at Half-Life 2. No cutscenes at all. Twice in the game they cheat by having rather long sequences completely devoid of content, which involve a lot of talking, so that it's pretty much a cutscene you can walk around in.
So, this is a game that values gameplay, where most of your time in the game, no matter how pretty it is, will be spent actually playing.
And there are gameplay innovations, like the way the physics are used. And Valve did something right when they refused to add eye candy to a level until it had been thoroughly playtested, although it does give much of the game a feel of a Half-Life environment with better textures, much better models, and occcasionally a bit of personality in the environment itself.
But, much of the experience of the game is inseperable from the graphics and the physics, both of which require a MUCH more powerful machine than you needed for Half-Life. You wander around the beach area, and because of the detail of the antlions, because of the design of the highway and how you feel you can see to the horizon, you're practically shaking sand out of your ears even by the time you reach the bridge. And at the bridge, the steel girders you're walking on feel real and tangible, and you look down at the ocean, stretching out to the horizon, and you're going to get a bit of vertigo. If the bridge didn't shake when a train went over it, if you were walking on solid brown sticks over a big blue polygon, and if you could count the polygons on the gunship chasing you, would you still be as careful about falling? It's not as if you don't have a quicksave function...
Yes, much of that is not a hardware limitation -- not anymore. Much of it is due to the artistic geniuses working at Valve. In fact, if you look at Doom 3, where, despite the environments feeling more flawed and real and less purely geometrical than in Half-Life 2, if you have a machine which can handle the dynamic lighting, there isn't a huge difference in experience and gameplay between Low quality and Ultra quality, especially considering id focuses their detail where it counts, so if you whip out your flashlight and actually examine the maps, you'll find a stunning lack of quality. You'll find pixels (texels, to be precise) the size of your hand, that they get away with because you usually won't see them, because the maps are so dark.
My point is, there are thresholds in the technology, any technology, graphics included, where before you hit that point, everyone agrees that current
Don't thank God, thank a doctor!
I can't believe these cockmonglers at Next Generation have the balls to bitch at a company for recognizing that it's unable to compete with the BILLION dollar likes of Sony and Microsoft.
God damn it. Nintendo is a company that keeps billions of dollars in cash. They are famous for it. The last figure I read, they had over $7 billion completely liquid. That is nearly twice as much than Microsoft lost on the XBOX. They have enough money to play the same game as Microsoft and Sony; they choose not to.
Why? Profit.
The arms race between Sony and MS may yield no net profit for either company. Nintendo is a well run company. They will not invest billions in a venture that is so high risk.