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
Seeing as Spore currently is on track to be Next-Next-Gen anyways. I guess it's safe to say it'll be on the Wii 2 rather than the Xbox 720 at this point.
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?
A link to the real article from The Guardian would have been much nicer.
Demented But Determined.
So you're saying that 360 owners are resigned to knowing that their system is mediocre at best?
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.
I'd originally dismissed the 360 as just like the last generation, just with more shiny. But all of the internet and xbox live services really push this into realms I've not yet seen. The 360 is certainly one direction the next generation can take, even if you disagree with it. The Wii is another approach. I haven't played one or anything but I hear it has an arcade like the 360 and can explore that avenue. Exploring new demographics is a great idea and they've certainly built up some impressive hype to go along with it.
The only console I'd really bag on at this point is the PS3. Whatever they tried to do with it, it ended up a failure. I don't really see that conclusion changing any time soon, a late lifecycle resurrection or the like.
I'm still happy with the idea of multiple game systems vigorously competing against one another. The last thing we need is a video game monoculture that stifles all development.
Kwisatz Haderach
Sell the spice to CHOAM
This Mahdi took Shaddam's Throne
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.
Usually I agree with Will Wright (regardless of your opinion of his games, you cannot deny the impact he has had on the industry) however, in this case, I think he is a little off the mark.
The Wii does something new and exciting, yes, but so do the PS3 and the 360...it's not just "shinier graphics", there are many things that game developers are able to do now that they were unable to do before...that extra computing power can go towards smarter AI, larger level design (for example, compare the size of the levels and objects on screen in Beautiful Katamari to the first three Katamari games.)...it's similar to CGI in movies...it is allowing us to achieve things in movies that were previously nigh-impossible.
And let's not forget the online portion as well. Yes, Live was around with the original Xbox, but look at what Live has grown into...a massive marketplace, tons of video and game demos right at your fingertips, not to mention Arcade titles...ditto for the PSN, so much stuff it's nearly overwhelming. The Wii has done well with the Virtual Console in this area, although out of the three I would have to say it has the furthest to go.
The Wii has made some baby steps towards innovation, but it's going to take games where the waggle is no longer labeled as such (Prime 3 is a great example of this, btw.) More powerful CPUs and GPUs don't just make things extra shiny...they make gameplay possible that was not possible before...just like a Wiimote.
Living With a Nerd
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.
Well, but you're not part of the core demographic of the Wii or of Spore.... The fact that you own all three consoles tells me you're not a casual gamer. I have a Wii, and my wife plays it more than I do. She wouldn't touch the other consoles with a ten foot pole, but she loves the Wii games. Even the simple ones that you're disparaging. The "audio quality, screen size, screen resolution, and general graphics quality" don't really matter to her as much.
True gamers have never liked titles like The Sims or Spore because they don't have an end goal. You actually have to be creative in these games to enjoy them; it has little to do with "involved skill".
The Sims was innovative when it was new. What's more likely: that Will Wright has slaved away personally over every one of the dozens of Sims expansion packs or that Electronic Arts controlled the massive expansions for that series?
Wright had as much to do with Sims expansions as John Carmack does with community Quake mods.
She wouldn't touch the other consoles with a ten foot pole, but she loves the Wii games.
It's easier to use the 360 if you switch to a smaller pole... try 6" or maybe a foot at most.
Comment of the year
HD graphics doesn't enable console games to do anything new; they do the same stuff as N64 games, but better looking (and with some features borrowed from PCs, like networked multiplayer). The wiimote enables games to do things that are truly new for mainstream consumer entertainment products.
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.
When "The Sims" first came out, it really was a new game, and not a clone or rehash of other games. The thing that so many people find annoying about "The Sims" is the continued push of new content packs, and the expansions. Others dislike the community that revolves around the franchise because it is very different from the RPG or the FPS crowd, each of which has their own feel and community.
Many people also look at the content that has been made available for the consoles as being what the console is all about(because of marketing). That has to be seen as a very valid opinion, because without games, any console is just a piece of electronic junk in the same way that a PC without applications is a piece of electronic junk. The SOFTWARE is what makes any of these things worth buying. So, are the games for the PS3 or 360 any different in terms of gameplay compared to the last generation? The Wii has changed the gameplay(due to the controller(s) used), and the games available are different, and as a whole are not just newer versions of stuff seen in the last generation of console games.
Make no mistake, new shooters on the new consoles may have new graphics and have notable improvements, but aside from story, how different in terms of gameplay are games on the new consoles compared to game on the old consoles?
I do NOT consider the Wii to be next generation, but it's different. In many ways, the differences are an improvement since there is more to games than running around in a World War II game trying to play the hero, or shooting everything that moves while following a very linear storyline with no options or chance of changing via actions.
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.
So, what your saying is, you wanna play the Final Fantasy series on Wii?
Course, this post started out as me being a wise ass, but wouldn't that actually be kind of cool?
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
As I recall, Johnhamsta asked him about having Spore and other such games on the Wii very early on, and it looks like it did some good.
...)
Now, a more intriguing question is - what will the next gaming console be when America converts over to 80 percent HDTV somewhere in 2009?
I've seen how the PS3 is now shipping features that are part of the Wii in an attempt to catch up - what other features do we think we're likely to see? One can assume it will be an HD-DVD version capable of running both DVD and HD-DVD, with probably a base aspect of 720p, but will it be designed for 1080p for optimal usage?
And will we see things like lightsaber and gun attachments become standard add-ons (much like the Guitar Hero III addon) or will the controllers morph into this usage (traditional Wiimote and nunchuk used as if they were those add-ons).
And will I be able to use my Barbie and Bratz Princess Fairy and Wicked Pr1nc3zz controllers as well? (no, I don't have them, but if more than half of the market will be women and girls
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
They're manufacturing a market out of essentially nothing; out of people who have written off video games or have never been that interested before. I'm not sure how you quantify that market, except by churning out consoles as fast as you can and see how many of them you can sell.
Nintendo was never going to win the hardcore market anyway. They've never catered to that and I don't think that stuffing a lot more processing power in the Wii so it could render blades of grass more effectively was going to make it appeal more to the Gears of War / Halo 3 set. Given that premise, the Wii has been amazingly successful. Moreso if they profit off of the consoles themselves and don't need to depend too heavily on downstream game sales.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Anyone who would label themselves as a "gamer".
My blog. Good stuff (when I remember to update it). Read it.
You mean the Sims expansion packs have a wall texture of Will Wright's bloody head impaled on a stick? AWESOME!!!!
Please stop stalking me, bro.
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.
I'm a PS3 AND a Wii owner. I'm also an avid PC Gamer. My system is about 2 years old yet can play Jericho (thank you gametap) on it's max graphics settings at 1200x1024 resolution (highest my LCD monitor takes).
I'm honest up front here no trolling intended. The PS3, I only play PS2 games on it currently. I have a lot of them, they look much better, and not having to swap memory cards is a world of difference. I've put in 160 hours playing Persona 3 (when will it end damnit?)
No trolling intended I'm going to sway in the favor to Will, the PS3 and 360 are upgrades not seriously next gen. Better graphics, CPU, memory, networking, internal storage, upgraded sound.... It's all "upgrades" nothing seriously innovative.
Sure PS3 and 360 feature multicore CPU's and wireless control. But there is nothing seriously new with either console aside that it now has a mini OS that you can web browse, stream music and video and stuff. but that's not really next gen either. My computer has done that since 1999 or even earlier.
The Wii on the other hand Is as close to a true "next gen" platform as you can get. It has an entirely different controler scheme, multiplayability and simply fun. Nintendo brought in seniors who've never played video games into the fold. They've widened the audiences and are adding in a slew of different addons that will expand on the Wii's everyday non gamer usability "wii fitness".
I'm sure Sony could easily add in a Wii style controler with Ease. update their system software to support a new bluetooth device and add a wireless sensor bar....
But So far Nintendo took the edge. They took a risk, made a new style of console, and opened up gaming doors to millions more who never dreamed of gaming. That's an achievement.
All 3 consoles have their place though. Not everyone will get all 3, and not everyone shares the same needs. So each console serves it's purpose.
in close, I'll agree with will that the Wii is the only true next gen, and the PS3 and 360 are mere upgrades. None though are trash. I love my PS3, even though it's only being used for PS2 games (ugh persona)
I've got to go against what you've said. "Next Gen" is next generation, it's not really actually supposed to be revolutionary and different. It's supposed to be an incremental improvement. Therefore the Wii can't be "Next Gen", it's not an improvement on the old. It's not the future of the game console. It is the beginning of something different, not the continuation of the old.
It's kind of like claiming that a laptop is the next generation of desktop computers. They can do a lot of the same stuff but they aren't designed for the same target markets.
Fanatically anti-fanatical
I grew up with a mouse and keyboard to control FPS games. Then I tried playing Halo 3 at a friend's house, and couldn't control my character well enough and got killed way too many times. Give me the option to play with mouse and keyboard on the Xbox 360!
Whoever stated that signature sizes should be limited to one hundred and twenty characters can just go ahead and kiss my
That was John Romero, not John Carmack.
Please, for the good of Humanity, vote Obama.