Where are the Original Next-Gen Games?

The Guardian has an editorial bemoaning the fact that, while the next-gen consoles all seem to have a lot of promise, so far the much-anticipated titles of 2006 are sequels. Most of those are slated for current-gen systems, too. From the article: "However, those hoping for a new game type to take us into the high-definition era may be disappointed. The most anticipated titles of this year are franchise old-timers - Final Fantasy XII on PS2; Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess on GameCube; Metal Gear Solid 4 and Vision Gran Turismo on PS3; and Tomb Raider Legend on practically everything. Publishers are still relying on games that have been around for more than a decade. Yawn."

Comments

decade ?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

some of these franchises begun in 8-bit consoles/computers more than 20 years ago... case in point: metal gear and zelda. both existed for MSX computers back in 1985...

Re:decade ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Zelda = Not on MSX.

MSX = A Microsoft gaming console.

That is all.

Re:decade ?

[C0vardeAn0nim0]

ok, you're right on zelda. but if MSX is just a console, WTF was one of them doing in the russian space station ? http://msx.gnu-linux.net/msx-in-space/

Re:decade ?

[Anonymous Coward]

MSX was a home computer (MicroSoft eXtended i believe) which had a lot of great classic games (like Metal Gear, Castlevania, and Ys, just to mention a few)

And the Revolution?

[Kataton]

Taking in account that no game is officially announced yet, I don't know why the article says that.

The more original a game is...

[Andy_R]

...the less it can rely on hype. Can you imagine there being pre-launch hype for Tetris?

What hype there is for innovative next-gen games is centred round the Revolution's controller, presumably because we have scant news on games that will exploit it yet.

Re:The more original a game is...

[voice_of_all_reason]

+5 (Smrt)

Even if there is a genre-shaker on the horizon, and some of the gaming mag reviewers have a copy, it won't really start getting notoriety until the thing gets into players' hands. Just think, if you saw some website saying saying X is the next big thing, but you'd never heard of X before, you wouldn't really pay attention.

Well, at least I wouldn't.

Re:The more original a game is...

[Anonymous Coward]

On the flip side, an original game that fails is quickly forgotten (even if it saw a lot of hype.) A disappointing sequel, OTOH, tends to stick in our collective minds.

Re:The more original a game is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Query. (Dave Nelson: Uh, Recognized.) What would Tetris get, score wise, as a rating if it came out today? My guess is that it would only get around a 7.7 from Gamespot. It's fun, but simplistic. We judge today's games by such high standards but then compare them to old games which didn't face such stringent standards. But, whatever, I can't wait for Unreal Tournament 2007 which should be a great game even thought it's a sequel. God, I'm drunk, if I have a point at all, could someone second part of this.

Seacrest OUT!

Re:The more original a game is...

[DrEldarion]

Black and White? Quite an original game, I'd say, and one of the most overhyped there was.

Re:The more original a game is...

[drinkypoo]

Nah. The most-hyped game is DNF. The second is Fable, and the third is B&W. of course, the fact that molyneux is responsible for both of those tells us something... he should stick to simpler games. His old stuff was magnificent! I think that he should just be kept away from fast computers, and he should make stuff for handhelds instead.

Enough already

[jayhawk88]

Publishers are still relying on games that have been around for more than a decade. Yawn.

And yet when these titles come out, and they rock, we all won't be able to shut up about how excellent they are and how much fun they are to play.

Look, I get that gaming needs to stop relying on sequels, but I'm also getting sick of this notion that just because a game doesn't use 100% original ideas and characters it must suck. Is there really anyone here that doubts that FFXII or Zelda: Twighlight are not going to be Game of the Year candidates when they are released?

Re:Enough already

[CashCarSTAR]

Actually there's a lot of doubt regarding XII. Quite a few people have serious reservations about the battle system.

Myself, after playing the demo, I have to say that the battle system is a load of fun. The game needs the customization system to fill it out, of course, but it's very promising.

Re:Enough already

[Zediker]

I think when they are talking about sequel games, they are refering to games like Madden, which hardly even change. Each Final Fantasy game is usualy different from the previous in play mechanics and story. Each Zelda usualy tries to go with something new or something old used in a new way. But games like Madden, are really just the same game just with an updated roster. Thats what they are complaining about. I dont want to play Game X5 when its exactly like Game X4 which is exactly like Game X3, and so on...

Re:Enough already

[LeeItson]

I havent played the demo yet, but I have heard a lot about the battle system and its comparison to FF11's battle system (free for all, no random battles, that sort of thing) and I am excited about it. I dont own a PS2 personally (usually borrow my brothers) and FFXII, along with FFX and FFX-2 are making me have to buy one.

Re:Enough already

[Mycroft_VIII]

Actually X2 and X3 are pretty good games (well X3 needed patching to be playable, and needs a good system both on cpu and gpu). I'm currently addicted to X3.
    If you don't know the the X series of games, they're the modern day equivelant to the old Elite games.
    The X series is from Egosoft. The caveat here is they use Starforce for copy protection and Starforce doesn't have the best rep. For one thing it works as a series of hidden device drivers that load at boot.
    I know, I know not what you meant, but see the above about adiction :)

Mycroft

Revolution

[Southpaw018]

That the gaming industry has established memorable and long lasting characters is a good thing. Every mainstream industry needs recognizable figures, even if you don't know much else about them or the industry itself. Even if you're not a fan of Western movies, you know who Clint Eastwood is.

Now, on to the reason behind the problem. This next generation of consoles have taken the wrong path with their hardware. That is, two of them have. The XBox 360 and the PS3 have graphical processors that are fantastically adept at processing large amounts of raw graphical information. The thing is, they went to such an extreme to get that extra edge, they sacrificed other things, like logical processing power. Essentially, the XBox 360 and PS3 can process a million bajillion bajillion polygons per second, but then they can't do anything with that information.

The Revolution can. It's more powerful than its predecessor, the Gamecube, by a fewfold (estimates put it 2-4x), so it looks really good, but it doesn't push its raw graphical power to such an extreme that it ignores what's important. Add in the controller and that, my friends, is where we will see original gaming make its return.

Re:Revolution

[PoderOmega]

While I would like to buy into your arguement you are a little weak on your sources. Do you have any technical specs or sources to back what your post up?

Re:Revolution

[jasko]

You are misinformed. The Xenon (not Xeon) processor in the 360 is fantastically powerful. It's got three 3.2 GHz PPC cores, each capable of performing whatever magic is trade-named "Hyperthreading" in the Intel world so that they can service two threads without the performance-sapping overhead of switching.

As for polygon processing power, might I remind you that these are video games - their entire reason for existing is to display rich graphical representations of games. So pushing graphical prowess isn't to be scoffed at. Anyone else out there floored by the downloadable demo of (sequel approaching! Run!) Fight Night Round 3 for the 360? I know - it needs to be smoothed out a little to play as well as the XBOX version of FNR2, but I'm sure that the fine-tuning of control is on the agenda for the time before release. Tell me that the viceral experience of boxing isn't enhanced by the improvements in graphics, I dare you.

I don't deny that the Revolution is taking an interesting tack on the next generation. I may even buy one if it's dirt cheap and the games are compelling - and I was a Sega gamer back in the day, so downloadable NES games aren't compelling. Check out Wik: Fable of Souls for a downloadable platformer that's worth your $10 bucks or so.

I don't know enough about the Cell CPU to defend my initial impression that a single core and a bunch of DSPs aren't going to stand up to three general purpose CPU cores in the arena of "logical processing power", but that's my opinion at the moment. And I can tell you for sure that the general CPU oomph of the 360 is impessive - and unlikely to be whipped by the "we're not worried about big hardware improvements" Revolution.

Re:Revolution

[pnice]

Fight Night Round 3 is pretty damn sweet.

You were a Master System person in the days of the NES? How did those 3D glasses work out? I didn't know anyone with a Master System when I was younger.

Re:Revolution

[ajservo]

I like Mike Tyson's Punchout better.

There's something about a 5'5" boxer (Little Mac) whooping the shit out of King Hippo or Piston Honda (who bears a striking resemblance to Yao Ming... Hmm...)

Re:Revolution

[Brantano]

Your logic is completly flawed. You say that they can process immence amounts of graphical power but cannot process logical power (I'm assuming you mean Psychics). Both systems have the capability to push out both logical and graphical power, many times over what the revolution will be able to do. The only thing the revolution has over these systems is a controller, that could or could not revolutionize its gameplay. Hell the ps3 has more backwards compatability than the revolution at this point. The ps3 even has something that could revolutionize its system if done right. Just like the revolution's controller, the ps3 has the eyetoy, and if done right it could make games exactly like the revolutions. I believe that both the x360 and the ps3 have something over the revolution, and thats not limiting what the developers can do. If they want to make a beautifull, highly detailed game they can. If they want to make a game such as katamari demancy, they can. If they want to make a game that has realistic psychics they can. The problem is with the people who buy games. When they see a game on a system like Gears of War or MGS4, they expect ALL games to look like that. Even game critics that review games has a score for graphics. It shouldnt be like this. If a developer wants to make a game with ps2 graphics, they should, and not be scored against because it looks bad.

Re:Revolution

[ClamIAm]

It's got three 3.2 GHz PPC cores, each capable of performing whatever magic is trade-named "Hyperthreading" in the Intel world

Actually, Hyperthreading is making one physical core look like two, when in reality it's still just one core. The Xenon has multiple physical cores, so I doubt they'd need to rely on hyperthreading.

Re:Revolution

[ClamIAm]

The GP's logic is fine, he just doesn't have any data to back up his claims. Now...onto your logic. And data.

Both systems have the capability to push out both logical and graphical power, many times over what the revolution will be able to do.

This is a nice assertion. Where did you get the data? Considering that all three of these systems use different processors, motherboards, and support chips, it would be pretty hard to come up with a clear "winner" in terms of benchmarking. More importantly, two of them haven't even been released yet! How can you pass judgement?

The only thing the revolution has over these systems is a controller, that could or could not revolutionize its gameplay. Hell the ps3 has more backwards compatability than the revolution at this point.

Once again, both of these systems have not been released, so we don't know whether their claims of backwards-compatability will actually make it to market. That said, if Nintendo follows through on their claims of having all old Nintendo games available, the Revolution would draw from a library spanning seven systems (not counting the VB and DS), and over 20 years.

And no, the Eyetoy probably can't do what the Rev controller can do. Can an Eyetoy process four distinct motions at once (four players, or two players with two "arms" each)?

I believe that both the x360 and the ps3 have something over the revolution, and thats not limiting what the developers can do.

If you replied to yourself here, you should claim that your logic is "completely flawed", because this is exactly the type of statement you were calling the GP on. And no, this has nothing to do with logic, because none exists here. What exists is a complete lack of argument or data to support your claim.

The problem is with the people who buy games. When they see a game on a system like Gears of War or MGS4, they expect ALL games to look like that.

I'm sure all the people who bought Nintendogs or DS Brain Training agree with you. Not.

Re:Revolution

[leland242]

I think this is a good demonstration of exactly what Nintedno wants: A discussion about the ps3 and xbox360 and how they differ from the revolution.

But it's not about competition since all these discussions come to the same conclusion - the 360 and ps3 are the same, but the revolution is different.

From that, people tend to say the revolution is either crap or great - most are probably somewhere in the middle. The point is that Nintendo has distinguished itself. Assuming the current perception remains the same, people are going to buy it! For some, it'll be thier primary console because it's different and cheap, and for others it'll be a secondary console because it's different and cheap. win - win

Re:Revolution

[Fred Or Alive]

AFAIK each of the Xbox cores can do this "Hyperthreading" thingy as well. So you could theoretically have six threads running at once.

Re:Revolution

[Brantano]

Your actually trying to say that the revolution can compete with either the 360 or the ps3 in polygon/floating point pushing power? Its already been said by nintendo that the system will be about 2-3.5 times more powerfull than the gamecube. This isnt anywhere near as powerfull as the 360, and definetly not as powerfull as the ps3.

Re:Revolution

[ClamIAm]

This isnt anywhere near as powerfull as the 360, and definetly not as powerfull as the ps3.

Once again, where is the data to back this up? All we have so far is press releases from Nintendo and Sony. It's completely pointless for you to do such mental masturbation for or against a certain console when we don't even have all three of them.

The most obvious place where your argument fails is that we don't have two of the consoles yet. How can you compare three things if you only have one of them? It's not being fair to any of them. The Revolution and PS3 might have final dev kits out, but we have yet to see the consumer hardware, and that is the model that counts. The 360 has been out for less than two months, so it's not fair to that system either, as MS and game makers are working out bugs in the system and learning how to better optimize things. Because of this, comparing them is speculation at best, FUD at worst.

But even once we have all the systems, your argument still fails because it's not possible to directly compare these machines. This is because, as I've said before, they use different processors and other such chips. Just because one has a processor that runs twice as fast (in MHz) doesn't mean it's twice as powerful. Just because one has 14 cores doesn't mean it's awesome. Just because one has one core doesn't mean it sucks.

PS: spelling and grammar can only hurt you. If it's perfect, nobody notices. If it's horrible, it makes you look dull.

Re:Revolution

[justchris]

Well, there are 2 things to consider.

What the parent was talking about, processing physics and especially AI, the PPC architecture used on the cores in the 360 are inferior to the Intel and AMD architecture's for branching predictions, so having 3 cores, with hyperthreading, does you no good if the cores themselves are inferior. Of course, the PPC architecture is also faster than the Intel/AMD architecture, so it's especially good for graphics hungry console systems.

It's interesting to note that the Revolution (which has been rumored to have 2 cores) is also using a PPC based architecture. It will get around the poor AI perfomance in the same way the GC did. Faster RAM, and increased cache. I believe the GC had about 4 times as much cache as a standard computer had at the time, which still puts it at have twice as much cache as your typical high-end gaming pc these days. I expect the Rev will have even more cache, so that's why the speculation is that Rev games will have better AI.

The second thing to consider is the graphics card. Whatever else the 360 may have, it doesn't have the graphics processor that the GC had. The Flipper GPU developed by ArtX (shortly before they were bought out by ATI) was so powerful that the CPU in the GC was incapable of handling even 50% of what it could do. The GPU is an improved version of Flipper with more RAM, and some of the advances ATI has put in their newer generation of graphics cards, like combined vertex/pixel shaders & whatnot. Since it will only be displaying at 480i/p resolutions, instead of the enforced 720p of 360 games, at 480 resolution, graphics quality will probably be indistinguishable between the two systems. Only someone with a high def tv running 360 games at a higher resolution would be able to tell the difference, which accounts for less than 10% of gamers. In 5 years everyone might have HDTV's, but in 5 years, Rev's successor will be debuting.

Personally, I've always preferred Nvidia cards to ATI cards, there are different advantages to each. I really cant' say what the ps3 will be capable of, since it's hard to say what the cell will be capable of since it's incomplete, and totally different from any CPU on the market today...even though it's also PPC based.

Re:Revolution

[justchris]

Now that's hardly a reasonable conclusion since even the best looking game for 360 isn't anywhere near being twice as good looking as the best game for gamecube. Not that it's fair to microsoft to make a judgement yet as the 360 is significantly different from the original Xbox to develop for.

Re:Revolution

[Brantano]

As i am on an internet discussion site, again the -internet-, i dont believe i need to care about my grammer. You might care, but i dont really. Never was good at it, never will be. Does that make me any less of a human? No. The ps3 has been toated as being nearly identicle in power to the 360. The 360 is stated to having somewhere in the ballpark of 10x as powerful as the original xbox. Considering the xbox was identical if not more powerful than the gamecube, we can asume that a system that is 3x as powerful(Revolution) as its predicesor will not be as powerful as the 360. Which using simple logic clearly points out that if the 360 is 2-3x as powerful as the revolution and the ps3 is identical (if not more powerful) than the 360, than both systems are several times stronger in cpu and gpu calculations. Or can you nintendo fanboys not understand logic?

Re:Revolution

[Hast]

I was going to just mod this down but let me argue the point instead.

You are severely misinformed. It's true that the X360 and PS3 have monstrous GPUs and can shovel polygons to the screen faster than before. But that's just one part of the system. The CPU cores are quite capable of processing data and their power has not been sacrificed in favour of the GPU. Rather the CPUs have been boosted to even more ridiculous levels compared to previous generations.

It's also turned out that the DPSs in the PS3 are not as limited as was once thought. They do (as the Xenon in the X360) have some branch prediction and will be able to handle themselves. Also note that while next gen cores may not have quite the branching logic as a standard CPU it's expected that developers spend more time to optimise for a console than a normal PC.

Since there are no data on the Revolution yet any speculation on its power is just borderline trolling IMHO. However, considering that Nintendo seem to aim for the slightly cheaper market again it's not reasonable to assume that it will be more powerful than the X360 and PS3. It may well be easier to get performance out of though, but that's hardly the same thing.

The problem with developing for next gen consoles will not be that they lack power. The problem is that the power will be harder to get the most out of.

That said, the clear winner in the next gen consoles is (as always) the gamer that gets all of them.

Re:Revolution

[ClamIAm]

As i am on an internet discussion site, again the -internet-, i dont believe i need to care about my grammer. You might care, but i dont really. Never was good at it, never will be. Does that make me any less of a human? No.

I'm not going to comment on this, except to say this response only proves my point for me.

The ps3 has been toated as being nearly identicle in power to the 360.

First, I'm assuming you meant to use the words "touted" and "identical". Yes, Sony's marketing team has told us this repeatedly. But unless you can pull some real numbers out of your ass (such as benchmarks), this statement is absolutely worthless. But wait! You can't get any real numbers, because the PS3 isn't released yet.

The 360 is stated to having somewhere in the ballpark of 10x as powerful as the original xbox.

That's great. Do you have any real numbers that show this is the case? I didn't think so.

Considering the xbox was identical if not more powerful than the gamecube, we can asume that a system that is 3x as powerful(Revolution) as its predicesor will not be as powerful as the 360.

I'm assuming you meant to use the word "predecessor". First, while it's generally agreed that the XB and the GC are "close" to each other power-wise, you cite no sources benchmarking them against each other. Also, directly comparing these two machines is tenuous, as they have radically different architectures and chips.

In regards to how powerful the Rev will be, you're again relying on numbers supplied by Nintendo that have not been shown to be accurate. We know that the Revolution is using some kind of CPU from IBM, as well as a videocard from ATI. We don't know anything more than that. So unless you work at Nintendo or a dev house that's using a final devkit, you can't say that you know for sure how powerful this system is going to be. And even if you do know the final hardware, what makes you qualified to state this? Are you an electrical engineer? A computer engineer?

Which using simple logic clearly points out that if the 360 is 2-3x as powerful as the revolution and the ps3 is identical (if not more powerful) than the 360, than both systems are several times stronger in cpu and gpu calculations. Or can you nintendo fanboys not understand logic?

Sorry, but it sounds like you don't exactly understand how logic works. For logical reasoning to be correct, you must start with assumptions that are correct. If you start with incorrect assumptions, it's like putting the wrong numbers into a calculator and saying that the answer you get is correct. And while the number you get is indeed a correct answer for the numbers you punched in, it's not the answer that you were looking for.

Your assumptions are that press releases and off-the-cuff statements from people at Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony correctly represent the power of their various machines. You have not shown why anyone should believe this, or why you are qualified to make this assumption. Therefore, because you started with incorrect assumptions, the conclusions you reach cannot be correct, even if your reasoning is logically sound.

Oh, and nice assumption that I'm part of some scheming cabal that refuses to listen. Wait, that sounds like somebody else. (hint: it's you)

Look a bit further

[Sockatume]

If you're expecting the interesting little original titles to be as boldy trumpeted as MGS4, you've got some pretty funny ideas. The Katamaris and Collosuses of the past arried with little fanfare: the original little games of the future will arrive just as unexpectedly.

Re:Look a bit further

[Irish_Samurai]

No doubt. While I loved both Katamari and Colossus I can't deny that they weren't exactly mainstream. Mainstream games sell consoles.

The reason that these sequels are being hyped on the next gens is because that is the message that will get the most gamers to by the next gen systems in the least amount of time. Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo aren't talking to the hardcore gamer demographic - we do all our own research without needing it fed to us. Most hardcore gamers already have a biased view on what system they are going to purchase and why, changing that opinion through marketing hype won't work - the big three know that.

Instead they choose to spend their money on getting the casual gamer to convert earlier than they normally would. The path of least resistance is to offer these gamers an experience that they are familiar with and would like to see more of. Casual gamers whos favorite game is Madden are more easily converted to buying a next gen if the Madden on that system looks amazing. Its that simple.

Hardcore and elite gamers need to quit whining about not being catered to in the marketing arena. Why should we be? We don't listen to it anyways. As a whole we rip any marketing aimed at us a new one, regardless of if its for our box or not. So pushing games to us through overt marketing is a negative action.

Games like Katamari and Colossus don't need the same kind of hype. Harcore gamers read every little bit of fanboi material they can get there hands on. In fact, we know these games are coming out well before their overt marketing is apparent. Groundbreaking games need to maximize their budgets, so they keep marketing costs down. Word of mouth works just fine for these games initially as our click is really vocal and has plenty of online outlets. If the hardcore demographic adopts a new title in droves, it's a safe bet that a large chunk of the mainstream demo will also. That's when these games start spending money on the hype.

People need to realize that not everyone shares our passion, and for a business to cater to a smaller group exclusively is a bad business move. We are catered to, we HAVE games like Katamari and Colossus. Don't get jealous because they don't get the face time people because not everyone will appreciate them.

Guaranteed money

[the computer guy nex]

Sequels are the best console-launch titles. Anyone with any experience in marketing will tell you that.

If PS3 was released with a bunch of games that no one heard of (despite how good they are) it wouldn't do NEAR as well as making sequels of everyone's favorite games from the previous system.

The 360 took this path, as will PS3.

It's about the story!

[ShadowsHawk]

We don't even require innovative ways to play the games. I'd simply like to see new story lines and characters. Metal Arms: Glitch in the System hardly added anything new in game play, but it had believable characters that were simply entertaining. It's a sad fact that the marketting budget will often weigh heavily on a games success.

I *looks around nervously* like sequels, though...

[Xugumad]

Don't get me wrong, it's good to see new games, but I actually quite like the sequel. If I liked the first game, odds on I'll like the second game too, and that's reassuring. Given the amount of enthusiasm /. has managed to display about GTA 3, Vice City and San Andreas, Doom 3, Quake 4 and MGS 4, I don't think I'm alone in this.

Also, how original does a game have to be? I picked up F.E.A.R. recently, and while it was a lot of fun, the graphics were incredibly similar to Half Life 2, and the gameplay not so far removed either. So, it's technically an original game, but isn't so original in reality. Got Vampire Bloodlines too, and couldn't help but be reminded of Deus Ex by the gameplay.

If you want innovation, go look at whatever Nintendo are doing next, it's always interesting (and I'm likely to be picking up a Revolution if only out of curiousity). Or for the PC, Introversion Software is probably a good bet...

Oh Sigh...

[AcheronHades]

The most anticipated titles of this year are franchise old-timers - Final Fantasy XII on PS2; Legend of Zelda Twilight Princess on GameCube; Metal Gear Solid 4 and Vision Gran Turismo on PS3; and Tomb Raider Legend on practically everything.

.....

New Genres

[Threni]

When movies first came out, they were black and white and lame. Then there was sound, and colour. Special effects, models, computer graphics. There was the first comedy film, thriller, western, cartoon, whodunnit, sci fi....but now what? Are more new genres expected? Not really. Is this a bad thing? Well, it doesn't matter as there's probably no alternative.

Exactly!

[Anonymous Coward]

This guy lost all credibility when he said that. No one gives a fuck about Tomb Raider.

Can Zelda games be considered sequals?

[RyoShin]

I don't know about anyone else, but when I hear "sequal" in relation to a game or movie, it means that said game or movie is a continuation of a previous game or movie.

In the case of the Legend of Zelda games, none of the games have really been a continuation of others.

Yes, there is some supposed chronological line where the games fit in timeline and not release date, but you can pick up any one game and safely ignore the others without it hindering your gameplay. Even if you ignore the different stories (though they tend to have the same outcome, "Defeat the bad guy and save the princess"), the game mechanisms are the same.

• In LttP, we had to cross from dark world to light world to get places later in the game.
• In Ocarina of Time, we had to go back and forth in time multiple times, affecting how the future would turn out in the past.
• In Majora's Mask, we again used time, but this time we only had three days to do anything, and we had to continuously repeat that (like Groundhog Day, but with swords and no Bill Murray)
• In Wind Waker, we had to control the direction of the wind to get from place to place or complete puzzles.
• In the Oracle games, we had to jump back and forth through time and seasons, with cause and effect relationships.
• In Minish Cap, we had to continuously shrink and regrow to explore tiny areas or gain access to otherwise unenterable areas.
• In Four Swords, we had to use teamwork, either with strategy commands or multiplayer action, to achieve our goals.
• In Twilight Princess... well, we turn into a damn wolf, we know that much.

In fact, I believe that Link's Awakening and the two NES Zeldas were the only action RPGs that didn't have any special game mechanism. (CD-i be damned.) Contrast this with Grand Theft Auto, where it's always the same "Shoot people, run from police, steal cars" formula, just with better and better graphics. A better term for Zelda games might be "installments", rather than "sequals".

Re:Can Zelda games be considered sequals?

[FinestLittleSpace]

Yes, the Zeldas have VERY rarely been even remotely similar games, much in the same way that Mario progressed ten fold through all it's incarnations.

I take offence to these 'sequels suck' articles. I think a more relevant name is 'EA sequels suck'.

Re:Can Zelda games be considered sequals?

[DrSkwid]

pssst sequel

Re:Can Zelda games be considered sequals?

[RyoShin]

Whoops. :) Thanks.

Next-gen doesn't mean innovation.

[MaWeiTao]

We aren't going to see revolutionary next generation games. There's this absurd expectation that advanced hardware is somehow going to pave the way for innovation. If you're talking about technological innovation, rendering a more realistic scene, then sure, we'll see innovation. However, if you're talking about innovation in gameplay then it's not likely you'll ever see it, at least not from the major developers.

The term "next generation" applied to consoles is a bit stupid anyway. If these consoles are next generation then what does that make PCs which can already do what the Xbox360 and PS3 do and a lot more.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again, there was more innovation in a year of game development on the Atari 2600 then there will be in the entire lifespan on the Xbox360, PS3 and maybe the Revolution as well. Not that those games from the Atari-era are necessarily superior, but they were innovating a hell of a lot more than anyone today. They had to, they didn't have graphics and audio to fall back on as a crutch.

Easier to promote sequels

[mag46]

Not that I'm happy about the abundance of sequels slated for next-gen consoles (just look at the 360's lineup; how many are new and original?), but it's not that surprising that only already-popular franchises are the most anticipated. So far, I haven't seen any screenshots, videos, articles, etc. for a single Revolution or PS3 game.

Given this, what is there for me to get excited about? Well, if I know there's a game in a series I already like (Zelda: Twilight Princess, though it's current-gen) I have a reasonable expectation of quality in that game. If all I get is a name, maybe a (very) general description, and a company name, why should I be excited?

Again, I'm not saying that we should just get sequels, far from it. I just think that, until some decent information is released on these "lesser-known" games, gamers shouldn't be expected to get excited over them. Given the choice between Zelda, the newest game in a great franchise that I love, which has videos, articles, and screenshots galore, or a game I've never heard of, with a premise that isn't fully explained, which I've never seen even stills of, from a company I don't know, why should I be more excited about the latter?

Do you forget Zelda 2 and 4?

[tepples]

I believe that Link's Awakening and the two NES Zeldas were the only action RPGs that didn't have any special game mechanism.

Zelda II: The Adventure of Link had that Castlevania style side-scrolling thing going on. The Legend of Zelda: Link's Awakening was similar to the first Zelda but Link had to master a teleportation device called "The Select" to cross barriers.

Re:I *looks around nervously* like sequels, though

[DrSkwid]

Did you play F.E.A.R. on a top end system ?

Because I am and graphically, it rocks.

However it is the tried & tested: clear room, progress, clear courtyard, progress layout of the single person FPS. (though I've not finished it yet) in the same old locations : warehouse, offices, laboratories.

Where are the new environments at ?

Off the top of my head, some reasonable possibilities :
zero/low gravity rooms, upside down places (remember the deathmatch one in Sin ?), long underwater battles, volcano with proper flowing lava with rocks in you can jump on that melt, ice floes, snowy places (though Unreal has a great snowy deathmap map), you have been shrunk, you have been giganticized, whole fairground (hall of mirrors, ghost train, target shooting side puzzles etc.etc.)

Though I will state now, I liked Zen in HalfLife. The indoor bits particularly.

So come up with an original game.

[SmallFurryCreature]

Not that easy is it? Is that bad? We been playing the same video F1 games since the first F1 video game BUT the real F1 hasn't changed either. Same with all sports games. They are all sequels but then every World Champion ship is a sequel. Go to the olympics and you got the sequels of sequels and apperenly it is still very popular.

It just ain't that easy to come up with a good game design and since any game design of the past can easily be sold again with better graphics and margenilly improved gameplay that is what is going to be produced the most.

In fact if you think about it what game is really original? Tetris? You move something to build a wall. Mmm sorta like that paddle game where you should a ball to demolish a wall wich of course was sorta like pong.

Sequels give the developers a base to work from and the customers something to base their judgement on.

Sure I would like to play something brillianty new and fun but sadly most of the games that try to be radical turn out to suck badly. Look at the adventure genre. Lucasarts tried to innovate with it, the game industry loved the 3D move and the punters didn't buy it. The genre was declared dead and point&click was quietly buried.

Sadly if you take the time to search you can still find quality click&point games just like the ones of days gone buy that continue to sell to a big enough hardcore audience to give us a sequel to The Longest Journey and Runaway a road adventure (Broken Sword 4 is also in development disproving my theorie that action adenture didn't work but BS3 was a lot different from the crapfest that was lucasarts 3d adventures with their crap controls)

I rather have a good sequel then a mediocre innovative game.

Re:So come up with an original game.

[ClamIAm]

Not that easy is it? Is that bad? We been playing the same video F1 games since the first F1 video game BUT the real F1 hasn't changed either. Same with all sports games. They are all sequels but then every World Champion ship is a sequel. Go to the olympics and you got the sequels of sequels and apperenly it is still very popular.

The problem with this type of argument is that video games allow completely arbitrary representation of the game or event in question. In real life, there's pretty much only one way to race F1: you become a race driver, get in the car, and hit the gas. In a video game, this could be changed around by things like different game mechanics or control schemes.

I've always wondered why huge companies like EA don't release some lower-budget games that take a new twist on things like sports or already-established genres. Sure, this would mean taking a "risk", but there's a long history of new gameplay and new/different genres being extremely successful. I think of games like NBA JAM, the original Tony Hawk, and Mario 64 as good examples.

And yeah, there are a lot of mediocre games that try to do things "differently", but there are lots of crappy sequels as well. The difference, I think, is that games that try to be different and succeed tend to change peoples' ideas about gaming, unlike good games that are more conventional, which just move the evolution of games down the path a little further.

Re:So come up with an original game.

[Hast]

Because EA sucks? Or perhaps more accurately, they are the anti-thesis of innovation.

Re:So come up with an original game.

[ClamIAm]

Well, I used EA as an example because they definitely have the money to fund some skunkworks projects with more experimental gameplay. You can substitute any of the huge publishers that you wish.

Basically its like this....

[SB5]

To get a game on the new consoles. You are going to investing a couple hundred thousand dollars for just a small game concept demo to get actual funding for the full. For the older game systems, something tells me less money was needed and the yield was much higher when you did make a best seller.

The way you are going to see games come about is the way GTA started. It started out as a simple little 2d top down game, and now its become this great 3d game. Innovative games are going to start small, then after a successful release or two of a game model, then you will see the funding pour in to get a game that has innovative mechanics with a larger market in mind.

Chess wasn't invented over night, it developed over time. And the same happens in the game market. There are plenty of games out there that have pretty unique and innovative features. My favorite was the crafting and resource system that Star Wars Galaxies has/had. Although its not the same as it used to be, the entire game has done an about-face though, the company designing it decided to essentially start from scratch, just using the same engine and some similar mechanics.

Re:Basically its like this....

[ClamIAm]

Chess wasn't invented over night, it developed over time. And the same happens in the game market.

Games like Bejeweled shoot through this argument faster than the NSA snoops your e-mail. Seriously though, thanks for the data to back up your assertions. Not all game developers are funded the way you claim. You have no data to show that older consoles had higher yields. The original GTA was not simple. Just because it lacked polygons and Hollywood voice actors does not make it less complex. Innovative games can be big budget.

Sequels != Not Innovation

[CashCarSTAR]

The idea that because a game is a sequel, that it has less innovation than one that isn't, to be honest, is hogwash. Innovation in the game community has nothing to do with characters or story. Innovation has everything to do with GAMEPLAY. And it's an evolutionary stance. Progressive increases and advances in the gameplay is what innovation is.

Oh, and by the way. The Final Fantasy and Zelda series have very few actual sequels. Especially the Final Fantasy series, where a majority of the games in the series are stand-alone efforts.

Re:Sequels != Not Innovation

[TomHandy]

Thank you for pointing this out. Nothing is more frustrating to me than the repeated idea that sequels in games cannot be innovative. The Mario and Zelda franchises are both great examples of this. I think people forget why these franchises are so successful. If Nintendo just kept pushing out the same game over and over again, people would have lost interest long ago. But the reason people get so excited isn't just because they like the characters or basic stories, but because they know that most of the time, a new Mario or Zelda game is going to offer something really new and interesting as well. Not always, but a lot of the time.

Re:Sequels != Not Innovation

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the Final Fantasy games may take place in different "worlds" and not involve the same story, but they're the same damned game each and every time. They use the same items, the same combat system, the same basic characters, and the same general story outline. If you've played one Final Fantasy, you've played them all.

But that doesn't matter anyway, because the game in question is Final Fantasy XII, which is a DIRECT SEQUEL of Final Fantasy Tactics Advance. It also is based on the gameplay from the Final Fantasy MMORPG (which is itself an EverQuest clone with Final Fantasy items, which should be all you need to know about the game). So Final Fantasy XII is a double-sequel, taking the gameplay from one Final Fantasy, and the story from another.

Likewise all the Metal Gear Solid games have been identical (long boring radio dramas), Gran Turismo is basically the same with more cars, and Tomb Raider's advances have been generically graphical.

Zelda, on the other hand, has definitely been innovative with every sequel. The core story is similar, but none of the games have ever been a cookie-cutter copy of previous games. The non-Nintendo sequels, on the other hand, prove the article's point.

Re:Sequels != Not Innovation

[Saint Jimmy]

On a similar note, look at the newer Castlevania games. All of the CV games released for the GBA and DS managed to add something totally new to the gameplay with each launch. I mean, the Castlevania franchise consists of something like 20 games and is still going strong.

Re:Sequels != Not Innovation

[GrBear]

Hmm .. x != Not y ..

By any chance work, do you work for Microsoft?

Re:Sequels != Not Innovation

[TomHandy]

That's a good point............ they are probably an even more interesting example when you do look at the GBA and DS games especially and realize that they have managed to still make some nice innovations and improvements even though many of them seem very much like Symphony of the Night... the Castlevania games generally seem to have stuck much closer to the core formula, yet they still manage to put out fun games to play, which is a pretty incredible accomplishment, I think. To a lesser degree I might point to the GBA Metroid games (and of course Metroid Prime is an example of taking the core elements of a franchise and giving it a whole new perspective, while still staying true to the original games).

Re:I *looks around nervously* like sequels, though

[Anonymous Coward]

in fact, i've seen far, far more inovation of the types your describing from modders than from the mainstream

in fact, the best games, i believe, are those which encourage third party modifications (thanks Id)

this parallels the open source movement and for the same reasons

creativity is an individualistic trait and one that is stifled by the excessive authoritarianism found in most companies

as well, it sure seems as if the vast majority of new ideas come from those who receive the least monetary compensation

generally, the developers, or exploiters, receive far more than the creators

imho, of course

oh, and consoles are for kidz
--
2tec ~ hackin & slashin

Source

[bartyboy]

Technical specs speculation: http://arstechnica.com/articles/paedia/hardware/re volution.ars

In all likelyhood, the specs will never be completely revealed. However, third party developers with access to hardware documentation say it will be 2.5 times more powerful than the GameCube.

Like Sequels

[ThePolkapunk]

I don't want new and original games. I'm afraid of change. New games and new game genres scare me.

Re:Like Sequels

[Anonymous Coward]

Your angle's not quite obivous but honestly I seriously wish the original Mega Man series had continued for another dozen games after 6 on the NES. No, the X series absolutely does not count, though 7 and 8 were nice tries.

Re:I *looks around nervously* like sequels, though

[FriedTurkey]

Though I will state now, I liked Zen in HalfLife. The indoor bits particularly.

Zen in HalfLife was horrible. Every part of Half Life rocked except Zen. I couldn't wait to get it over with. I got lost like three times because everything looked the same. I almost gave up on Half Life, but I am glad I stuck though it for the end. Half-Life still is one the best games of all time.

The last flurry of original games...

[Stormwatch]

...happened on the Dreamcast, probably because it was easy and cheap to develop for. I guess it'll happen again with the Nintendo Revolution.

What? Most anticipated? What about...

[darkhadden]

Starcraft: Ghost, Middle Earth Online, Black, Bully, Okami, Winback 2, Star Wars Empire at War... Dude. How do you call yourself a gamer??? These are only through May 1!!! This could be as agood a gaming year as October-November '03 was a gaming month! That saw GTA, Metal Gear, and Other HIGHLY anticipated relases. '06 is the year of gaming, and nothing coming out, that I and all my hard-gamer buds anticipate, is coming out for Nazisoft Threeshitty! Damn the Halo 3 and its enticement, I have to Macguyver a 360 out of two showboxes, an anvil (needs a power supply) and old 2600 boards...

Trivia question

[SilentChris]

Name the last console that didn't have at least 1 sequel (or characters from previous games) among its launch lineup.

You're going to have to go back pretty damn far.

Re:What? Most anticipated? What about...

[Winterblink]

Starcraft: Ghost - A stealthy shooter. Real revolutionary.

Middle Earth Online - Another fantasy MMO.

Black - Another first person shooter.

Bully - Controversial beat-em-up from who else? Rockstar

Okami - I'll give you that, this game looks wild.

Winback 2 - Never heard of Winback 1, to be honest.

Star Wars Empire at War - Ever played the first Star Wars strategy game? Truly horrific. And this isn't groundbreaking at all.

So far it's not looking so pretty, and as you say this is from now until May.

Re:What? Most anticipated? What about...

[darkhadden]

Okay, to be fair, many on the list are not fresh... But they are anticipated. And don't be so hard on Rockstar there, JT, they make innovative games. You can't deny it. What was like State of Emergency when it released? Sure, it was basically, as Fat Bastard would say, Crahp, but it was original. Watching people run around the mall while you firebombed and generally caused havoc... It had its moments. Also, if you haven't heard of Winback... It was a PS2 launch title, if I recall correctly. It had awesome multiplayer... Kind of like a third person Perfect Dark with some elements of stuff we're seeing now a days, like RE4 or could even be the precursor of the only OK third person Bond titles flooding shelves with mediocrity these days. On top of all of this... We haven't even seen release lists to give hints as to what the Nintendo Revolution entails... It's a mystery. Love or hate the controller, if developers can't bring new breath to FPSs (not frames fanboy) Nintendo is forcing them to reevaluate control schemes. Chaos would demand that this moderate change to a tired dead horse of a genre could at endpoint bring about a redefinition of what FPS means to gamers! No one else is trying anything new. CERTAINLY not Microsoft. You have to respect Nintendo for longevity. XBox was founded on an effort to push Sony out of the gaming arena, don't forget it was slated as 'Project Midway' when it was being developed. As in the turning point of the war between Japan and America when America solidified their advantage. Gaming is not about burying one or the other, its about fun! Now that I've went off and tangented... Love your sig, by the way. Why did he have to die?? :)

Wha?

[Anonymous Coward]

Who on earth link to this? The Guardian blog is a hideous mess of terrible writing, unfulfilled ideas, hackery reporting and factual inaccuracy. This particular editorial is no different.

Re:What? Most anticipated? What about...

[Winterblink]

Because if he didn't, then you'd never think the others were at risk. Suddenly you thought, holy frack, is he going to kill them all off? Brilliance.

Back to the topic, we SHOULD be hard on these guys, especially Rockstar. Yes they've done some amazing things, but they can easily fall into the trap of doing more of the same. GTA3 was amazing, but were the subsequent games really all that much different than the first? Not really. LCS is on the PSP so it's portable (yay!), but will LCS on the PS2 (announced) be a must buy?

At the same time, I respect all the parties out there. Sony for getting the industry to where it's at today and for pushing the envelope with the PS3. Microsoft for making Live the compelling feature that's made the XBox worth buying. Nintendo for having the guts to try something different.

I'm hoping they all win this go around, and we lose none. Because if one falls, I fear a huge part of the industry will be affected no matter who it is.

That's why I'm critical of the games that are coming out. Software developers and publishers need to wake up and realize that there's more than just their own bottom lines at risk when they churn out the same old same old.

I'm Confused

[Shadarr]

I'm confused about the point of the article. The theme seems to be that the "next generation" has nothing but retreads and sequels, and then there's this:

Those despairing to ever see a game hero named Alan should hold out for Xbox 360 psychological horror title Alan Wake, about an author who finds himself in his own nightmarish fictional world. The 360 does well for original titles - look out for Bioware's much-vaunted sci-fi RPG Mass Effect, and Too Human, a proposed space adventure trilogy from Silicon Knights, the Canadian chaps behind Metal Gear Solid: The Twin Snakes and excellent GameCube adventure Eternal Darkness: Sanity's Requiem.

So, the only next gen console that's actually out now has three non-sequels already announced that are big enough to get some hype. Not to mention Oblivion and Kameo, which are already out/nearly out. That's not too bad in my opinion, especially for a system that's only a month old.

Re:What? Most anticipated? What about...

[darkhadden]

'Nuff said, bud, and I WHOLLY agree with you. But for the time being, I'd rather play with the toys I can get, than dream of the ones I want! >;) It's like my father always says, "Want in one hand, sh*t in the other. See what you get first." Get your filthy hands off me, you damned dirty developers! Also, San Andreas was huge, but just more clothing on the same basic doll. "Vive la Revolution!"

ps2 or gamecube?

[prockcore]

from the article:

If you own a PS2, the domestic robot sim Chibi Robo, the surreal collecting game We Love Katamari and the extraordinary Japanese adventures Shadow of Colossus and Okami should all be on your must-have list.

If you own a PS2, you'll want to pick up a gamecube to play Chibi Robo.. it's a Nintendo exclusive, and miyamoto himself had a hand in its development.

We want Originality like before

[MrCopilot]

Here, Here, and I'm tired of the same old stories in print and movies too. It's always Romance, Action, Suspense, SciFi, Crime, Horror.

We need new genres for everything. Also why can't we get another day in the week? Week In Week Out its Mon,Tues,Weds,Thur,Fri,Sat,Sun. When will the "calendar makers" listen to the consumer and put 2 more days in between Sat and Sun?

On a serious note. Quit bemoaning it and draft Your Original Ideas, If you can't code them there are DevHouses who need writers/story editors with Original Ideas. Or you can sit back and say "Entertain me!", and then whine because you get what sells best.

Original Fun games don't come from Editorials, they come from creative thinkers and coders.

Like this Guy Here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Will_Wright#Exte rnal_links Have you read/heard about Spore http://spore.ea.com/ or http://www.google.com/search?q=Spore+will+wright&s tart=0&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&rls=org. mozilla:en-US:official seems pretty innovative to me.

I now return you to your regularly scheduled WhinaPaLuza.

duh

[Steele Johnson]

yeah, but all you fukkn lemmings continue to buy the shit. What do you expect?

Re:I *looks around nervously* like sequels, though

[Anonymous Coward]

"long underwater battles?"

This reminds me of a Tom Servo quote, "Underwater fight scenes are the drum solos of movies." That's probably why you don't see long underwater fight scenes. I mean, seriously, do you think Aquaman was that good of a superhero? What crime happens underwater? How do you even fight underwater? I could go on, but this topic bores me just thinking about it.

Re:I *looks around nervously* like sequels, though

[DrSkwid]

The aspects of underwater I was thining of :

threats from more axes
inhibiting movement
certain weapons better than others
grenades being useless for throwing distance but horribly louder
diminished depth of field
things falling at reduced terminal velocity
air time limit

Yes.

[Inoshiro]

"In the case of the Legend of Zelda games, none of the games have really been a continuation of others."

Except "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link", a direct sequel to "The Legend of Zelda".
Or "Majora's Mask", a direct sequel to "The Ocarina of Time".

If you're going to base your entire post on a premise, at least make sure it's sound. You do have some points other, but there are Zelda sequels. That alone should be reason to not have a score of +5.

" Link's Awakening and the two NES Zeldas were the only action RPGs that didn't have any special game mechanism."

Well, "Legend of Zelda" did have that extra entire world afterwards. An arrange game was new at the time. "Link's Adventure" went in 2D top-down and 2D side-scrolling. Again, new at the time, old hat now.

"Link's Awakening" was pretty much "Link to the Past" with a different story and more of a slant on music, a theme Miyamoto has revisted many times in the series. I do believe it was the first time music was the main focus (it does predate Ocarina), and it can be argued that this makes it special in its own way -- most future Zelda games take the music theme and modify it (be it for time travel or wind control).

These are all points to keep in mind.

Re:Yes.

[RyoShin]

Except "Zelda II: The Adventure of Link", a direct sequel to "The Legend of Zelda".
Or "Majora's Mask", a direct sequel to "The Ocarina of Time".

My point still stands, though. It was that these games didn't feed off of each other, except for the rather generic plot devices (Link, evil sorcerer, princess). You don't need to know anything about Ocarina of Time to understand the story in Majora's Mask. Hell, Majora's Mask could be the first game that you ever picked up and you wouldn't be missing anything. I haven't played Zelda II enough to know if it holds the same, but I believe it does.

Even ignoring the story points, the overall gameplay is different in each game. Again, you have basic devices found in every game (bow & arrow, sword, shield, bomb), but to complete the game you have rather different paths, at least in the case of Ocarina of Time and Majora's Mask. As stated, Ocarina has you traveling back and forth in time to move ahead, only a few times affecting the future with what you do in the past. Majora's Mask, on the other hand, had you racing the clock. You only had three in-game days to do what you could, and then everything reset.

So, yes, Majora's Mask does happen chronologically after Ocarina of Time. However, a sequel builds off of a previous game or movie, when the Zelda games don't. Each can be taken as an individual game with no bearing on any of the others.

"Link's Awakening" was pretty much "Link to the Past" with a different story and more of a slant on music, a theme Miyamoto has revisted many times in the series.

While Link's Awakening does indeed use the Ocarina from LttP, I wouldn't say that it had a music slant. The only time the Ocarina was really important was when you finally got into the Wind Egg. Aside from there, it had little use, aside from being able to transport you to one point on the map and one or two other things. Contrast that to Ocarina of Time, or even LttP, where you used the Ocarina much more to go from place to place (the latter) and open doors and complete puzzles (the former). Yes, you collected the musical instruments, but then you'd have to say that LttP was a game with a maiden jewel slant.

So while LA does incorporate music, it isn't an overall theme (it's more "Life is a dream, or is it?", which isn't even close to a gameplay mechanic). You could compare it to the grapple hook in Wind Waker; it was used a lot there, but I doubt you'd find anyone who said that the grapple hook was the main mechanic of the game.

Re:Yes.

[Anonymous Coward]

"You don't need to know anything about Ocarina of Time to understand the story in Majora's Mask. Hell, Majora's Mask could be the first game that you ever picked up and you wouldn't be missing anything. I haven't played Zelda II enough to know if it holds the same, but I believe it does."

Not the definition of a sequel. I saw Bad Boys 2, and I'm pretty sure I didn't miss out on anything from not having seen Bad Boys (double entendre intended). You don't miss anything when you play Gran Turismo 2 without having played GT 1. To be more on-topic, the first Zelda game I played was Minish Cap, and it all made perfect sense.

Whatever, anyway. Sequels are fine, what sucks are a: BAD GAMES and b: SEQUEL PRICING. As in, if your sequel is just a roster change, or new tracks with everything else the same, it should cost a lot less than an original game.

Uh.

[Inoshiro]

I think you missed the point of Link's Awakening. The entire game you work to recover mystical instruments. That's the musical theme.

Every dungeon you entered, your goal was an instrument. In previous games, you had to do it for pieces of the Triforce -- this was a big plot change.

Dragon Warrior 3 and 4 both don't require you play 1 and 2; indeed, 3 is a prequel to 1 and 2, and 4 is set someplace else. Few would argue that Dragon Warrior 7 and 8 are net sequels to this disparate games. To do the same on Zelda is silly. They are sequels. They are not shitty, stupid, drivel sequels, like Madden 20XX (or, indeed, the latest MegaMan games, damn you, Capcom), but they are sequels all the same.