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.
Can you HONESTLY tell me that is true? Are you saying that Resident Evil 4 on the 'Cube is too ugly to look at? Is it so full of graphics flaws? If that game didn't come out on the 'Cube but came out on the 360 I think everyone would be talking about howt he "age of next-gen was here". God of War looked amazing on the PS2. I saw no graphical faults there. Yet that platform is almost 5 years old. Psychonauts looked amazing on the XBox an created a great virtual world. It, too, looked amazing on current hardware. If you look at Project Gotham 2, GT4, and many other games that are currently out, the current consoles look amazing. How about Burnout: Revenge on the XBox? Is that too ugly for you?
Can you honestly tell me that those graphics aren't good enough for you? Sure they could be a touch better (and thanks to that additional power, the Revolution can give you more polygons, higher resolution, and antialiasing), but they are about good enough.
Previous generations have given us huge leaps in graphics. NES->SNES->PS->PS2. But now the leap isn't that big. Things look better, don't get me wrong, but they looked about "good enough" already. We'll get a small improvement, and that is all we need. And let's not forget, that graphics are not the end-all-be-all of games (Katamari, anyone?).
The revolution is important for the games, and the new controller. They are taking a risk (as opposed to everyone else who is basically making the SNES with better graphics for the 30th time). People talk about how it is "just a controller" and a gimmick, but they said that about the DS too and look how that has turned out (outselling the PSP 3:1). Nintendo has even said they have been holding something back that will make things even better. I want to know.
But without that, what is the revolution? It is a console by Nitendo (the company who's consoles I always end up playing the most due to the most great games). It has better graphics than current consoles (which are already bordering on good-enough land), will play a HUGE backed library (NES, SNES, N64, Cube; plus it looks like Sega will be putting their library up too), will have an innovative controller for new kinds of games (you can apparently play Twilight Princess for the Cube with it, they built that into the game), in a small box (the XBox 360 is still rather big) which I expect to be quite (remember when consoles were nearly silent? I'm looking at you XBoxes and PS2). It will have a reasonable price point ($400? Too much. And how much does Sony want? I think that $200 to $250 is good, with rumors as low as $150). It is everything I want/need in a console.
Nintendo's strategy? Graphics look good enough now, keep innovating gameplay. They aren't competing with Nvidia and ATI anymore (PS, XBox).
Good for them. Someone remembers its about the games.
Really, aren't graphics good enough? We have the memory and storage to make 2D games where every object is a 100dpi hand-drawn animation in millions of colors. We can make amazingly realistic worlds (GT4, etc) or cool fantasy scapes that look great (Psychonauts, Mario Sunshine, etc). And if the Revolution really has the displacement mapping, it will only look better.
Good for Nitnedo.
PS: PLEASE reply with how graphics aren't good enough. Sure there are some ugly games out there, but I think we have ample proof that isn't a hardware limitation in most cases.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
Mario party 7? People keep buying them, and each one is better than the last (not worth the upgrade, but if you don't own one, they are fun).
Mario Soccer? That is supposed to be one of the best arcade soccer games out. There aren't many arcade soccer games.
Mario Golf? An amazingly fun and accessable game. It got me into video game golf.
Mario DDR? Arguable, but there wasn't much in the DDR family on the 'Cube. And since places are having trouble keeping it in stock, so people obviously like it.
Ice Climbers 3D? Doesn't exists (except perhaps in rumors). And the last game was like 15+ years ago, so how is that "yet another of the same old thing"?
The closest thing to a complaint you have is that Nintendo tends to put Mario and friends in all their games instead of random new characters? If all the games were bad, that would be one thing. But they tend to be the best (Mario Kart) or one of the best (Mario Golf) in the genre.
And if you want to yell at people for "pointless" sequels, why not yell at the rest of the industry first (especially any sports game). The last true Mario game came out 4 years ago in 2001 or 2002. The last Zelda was 2 or 3 years ago on a home console (there was Minish Cap, but that's a bit of a different beast). How many Need For Speed games have come out in the last few years?
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
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. What would they have them do, play "Console Wars III" until they waste every single cent of money they have in a market where the other two players financially dwarf them by an order of magnitude?
From where I stand, it looks like Nintendo took a step back, looked at the playing field and recognized that they have no chance to seriously compete with Sony and Microsoft in the high end console market. Really, what the hell would be the point? The 360 and the PS3 already have the bases covered and already have the developer support. What in the holy fuck would be the point of that?
Instead, they are going to offer a cheap as hell console that nearly anyone can afford, give it a unique controller and make it accessible. Are they going to impress the life-long, pimple faced virgins at Next Generation with endless Madden 200X, racing simulators and Movie franchise, shit-quality games? No... and I doubt they really give a flying fuck.
I'm buying a PS3 and I think the Revolution sounds interesting. For the $150 price point, if there are even one or two interesting launch titles, it will be worth checking out.
At least we won't have to sit in long lines to get one like the morons who were camping to get the 360. *snigger*