Slashdot Mirror
Will Wright Opines That Wii Is the Only Next-Gen Console
PhoenixOne writes "In an article that will probably tick off a lot of PS3 owners, Will Wright calls the PS3 and 360 'incremental improvement(s)'. 'The Wii feels like a major jump - not that the graphics are more powerful, but that it hits a completely different demographic. In some sense I see the Wii as the most significant thing that's happened, at least on the console side, in quite a while ... I still, for the most part, prefer playing games on the computer - to me the mouse is the best input device ever. Every generation it's like 'the PC's dead! The PC's dead!'. But it carries on growing when consoles are flat for five years. At the moment I can get better graphics on my PC than I can on the PS3.'"
All about gameplay baby and NOT pretty graphics. While they're nice to have, I'd rather have fun and be somewhat active than sit and look at pretty pictures. Viva le Wii!!! Peace
Or perhaps it actually went and did something new instead of rehashing the same crap all over again this time slightly shinier. I'm just saying...
How the fuck does the creator of The Sims have any right to accuse people of rehashing the same old crap over again?
I'm not at all surprised. Here's a man who is famous for creative mind asked what he thought about the new consoles. Of course he's not going to find the PS2 + 1 and the XBOX +1 (well + 360 in this case) interesting. They simply are more of the same. Better graphics with HD support. Even more bloat trying to act as a media hub. Wireless controllers. These are all nice things but really nothing that took any creativity. Really those two consoles are the sum of minor upgrades to bring them in line with newer technology.
The Wii itself is actually even worse in this regard, it's the past generation of tech being sold...again. The innovation and creativity is in the controller and that's what he respects. In this way the Wii isn't a Gamecube + 1 it's more like a Gamecube + Demographic widening idea. Is he doing anything of note for the Wii/DS? I'd be curious to see what he comes up with.
I agree completely. I wouldn't care if graphics were stuck where Zak & Wiki and Metroid 3 and Mario are. They all look just fine. If someone could figure out a way to make actual curved surfaces fast, that would be an improvement, but those games look fantastic. Heck, even RE 4 and some of the other 'Cube games looked good enough.
The Wii is different. I read something the other day where someone important commented that we have 50x more power this generation than last (or something like that) and we are using it to calculate 50x as many polygons and stuff like that. They are mostly being used for better graphics. Not more physics. Not more AI. Just more stuff in the background of games that don't effect things as much. There are a few games doing things differently, but the average game is still a PS2 or XBox game with more polygons and shiny things.
This will improve some as people get more familiar, but the Wii is the only system that is trying to do something different at this point in more than 1 or 2 games.
Comment forecast: Bits of genius surrounded by a sea of mediocrity.
but, really, what it comes down to is semantics. I mean, look at the different generation iPods, yea, there were some leaps, but sometimes it was just an improvement in hard disk space and tweaks to the interface. the way people use the term "next-gen" is in terms of the competition available. the wii's competition has been deemed to be the ps3 and the xbox360. technically, it's competing with the ps2 and xbox as well, but its main competitors, the ones that everyone keeps an eye on, are the ps3 & x360. each generation is just the group of the current competitors of that era so to speak.
So, while he does raise a VERY good point, its really just a different use of the term next-gen. its the next generation of each console (sony's, ms's, & nintendo's). while the wii is revolutionary, it doesn't mean you *can't* call the other consoles next-gen. technologically speaking, they are quite revolutionary (ie: ps3's cell processor) in their own regards, but the basic concept behind them hasn't changed.
I don't know why it would tick off PS3 owners (or Xbox 360 owners, for that matter)....
1. If your point of view is that "next generation console" means "console that introduces a new model for interacting with the system", then it is generally true that the Wii is the true next generation system (though the PS3 does cautiously dip its toe in that water).
2. On the other hand, if "next generation console" means "console that provides the core functions of a next generation TV-based entertainment environment," then the Wii misses the boat and the PS3 (and perhaps the Xbox 360) is the true next gen console.
3. Now, if one asserts that what makes a console "next generation" is that it taps a new or expanded audience of users, then it is not the console that is "next generation" at all. In this case, one might understandably describe the audience as "next generation gamers".
In summary, having a new or expanded class of users means there is a "next generation" audience. Having a new or expanded class of functions means there is a "next generation" device.
How are the things you mentioned not "incremental improvements?" All of the aspects of video games you just mentioned have been around since Doom, they've just gotten better ever since then... incrementally. Motion control, in the sense that the Wii has it, is new, as in never been done before in a console. What can you do on the 360 and PS3 that you can't do on a PC? Nothing. What about on the Wii?
Maybe the wording he's using is a little off; "next gen" has always meant "incremental improvements" over a wide array of features and capabilities. But "next gen" in the context that Will Wright seems to be using it truly does only describe the Wii.
I'll respectfully disagree here, the article is reporting an opinion of an influential developer, not trying to define anything specific. Wright's echoing the same insight that everyone else has had on the Wii; Nintendo is playing a different game (pardon the pun) from the "Big 2" everyone was watching a couple of years ago, and winning new customers from the disaffected masses that aren't willing to sacrifice feeding their children in exchange for a high-polygon paperweight :) It's not just about the box, it's about strategy IMO.
I think you missed some of his point.
It's not that the 360 or ps3 are bad systems. It's that what they really added to the previous generation was a little better graphics, a little more storage space, small upgrades in individual aspects of the product.
What the Wii did was introduce a really different way of playing the games, and in the process has tapped into a market the ps3 and 360 couldn't dream of. Ergo, the impact of the Wii on the console gaming genre is larger even through the technological advances involved aren't.
I'm a fiscal conservative, it's a pity we don't have a political party anymore
it just won't hold a gamer's interest for long.
It seems that you do not know that the largest age group of gamers is 40+. And that their sex is female.
Hardcore gamers typically occupy the 18-34 demographic and are mostly male (not all, but most).
This shift happened years ago. Pogo and all those other Java-based games available online changed things as the internet became popular with the general population. It is no longer what system specs do you have, or what your frame rate is with those specs (or what console you own). It is about sitting down and losing a few hours playing a game that you had originally devoted only fifteen minutes.
Yes, many people do not consider anyone outside of the 18-34 demographic to be gamers, but they are. They are the ones that are being targeted with the Wii. These are people that have influence over others. If someone's mother, father or grandparent is wanting to play a game with them on a Wii, then that is saying something. That is saying that gaming is finally hitting the general population.
I am not saying that hardcore gamers are people to just let fall by the wayside. They are not. However, they are not the most important demographic anymore. There are not enough of them to carry a PS3 or Xbox 360 into profitable margins in the first few years. Yes, I did just read something about the Xbox division of MS making a profit during a quarter this year, but that is not for this conversation.
Hardcore gamers were the life blood of many gaming companies for years. Many have changed what they liked. They have expanded their horizons and found other games that can draw them in. I am one of them. Although I did not consider myself a hardcore gamer, I did play many games associated with the hardcore crowd. I played them ten to fifteen hours a day, sometimes more. However, I have moved on. I started playing RTS games, and have even moved on to TBS games now. I play RPG games and quite a few Java-based games, but not as much as years past.
So, although, there will always be a hardcore gamer market, the industry has grown beyond them. They will still have their games coming to them, but they will have to live for awhile knowing that what they consider to be the best is not what is going to be talked about. Almost feels like a videophile talking about how much better Beta was over VHS, only to watch VHS take off leaving Beta fewer and fewer customers and therefore releases and then availability.
I go to Best Buy all the time to see the Halo XBox 360s that no one wants.
You do know the 360 outsold the Wii last month, right? Do you assume that because your supermarket always has bread on the shelf that no-one wants it?
---- Den ene knappen er powerknapp, den andre er Bender voice knapp "Bite My Shiny Metal Ass"
Why can't I have it all? Jaw dropping graphics and innovative controls (and compelling gameplay while we're at it).
I see too many people dismissing the importance of improved graphics, particularly in the face of the wii's novel controls. But graphics can improve the gaming experience (of course, I'm not saying that they automatically do; a bad game is a bad game, from text adventures, to sprites, to 3D). And I'm not just talking about hyper realism. Improved graphics can help immerse you in highly stylized games as well (see the upcoming Little Big Planet).
What I'm getting at here is that I think that the wrong message to take from the current generation of games is: graphics don't matter because the wii sold well. (Which isn't really what Wright is saying, but I see it a lot.)
What I want from the next generation of consoles is an amalgam of everything that is good about the current generation. And that includes graphics better than the ps3.
Every game ever was a rehash of Barbie, Doom, Brick Breaker or some random ass puzzle game (tetris, puzzle bobble, etc). They just end up with more FPS, more Polygons per whatever, and more BS graphics. Oh and three more guns if you buy the expansion pack.
Is Wii the only "next gen" video game system? I dont know. What is "next gen?" I dont think it has to do anything with graphics. But, Wii, as Nintendo does, is the only gaming system with a unique HID. Just like they did with the power pad, power glove, and the zapper gun.
I for one am not into a console because its ability to make 'realistic graphics.' I play video games for story line. Give me a unique way to play the same old game and I'm sold. Give me the same way to play the same old game with an upgraded look and 800000000 new weapons(!!(C)(R)(TM)) and woop de fucking do.
You are doing it wrong. I think perhaps this is one of the reasons PC gamers suffer is because of the FUD spread around by people with regards to the costs. Is it more expensive than consoles? Sure. Is it thousands a year? Not even on the high end. Turns out you can get quite a good gaming experience with a $100 graphics card. Get one of those every year, and you'll find that you can do a decent job running all the games out there at a reasonable resolution. Nab some benchmarks on midrange cards some time, they do just fine.
I don't know why it is so often presented as "Ultra high end or nothing." You know what? Turns out you can have plenty of fun gaming on a PC without everything being as high as it can be. You don't have to have a 30" monitor and play at max rez to be happy, you can play at 1920x1200 or 1280x800 and be perfectly happy (and in line with the resolution consoles use). Not every graphics setting in every game has to be turned all the way up, and so on.
I am a PC gamer and have a whole lot of friends who are and none of us break $1000/year. I spend by far the most, probably averaging about $500-600 since I get a new pretty high end graphics card each year and usually upgrade something else. Most of them spend in the range of $150/year if amortized on a yearly basis (generally it's a bi yearly type of thing). Still more than a console, though you are arguably getting close, but not breaking the bank.
So if you want to always have the best of the best, fine, but don't pretend that's what PC gaming requires and don't pretend it's comparable to consoles. You already have a system far in excess of any console.
There is, of course, the additional factor that a PC doesn't just have to be used for games. My PC is also a word processor, an Internet terminal, a DAW, a video editor, and so on. If you own a PC purely for gaming, ok then, but I'm going to guess most people get secondary use out of ti and that does factor in to the price.