We have to keep all those great artists employed so we can get great things like a remake of Miami Vice, the Dukes of Hazzard, and other such crap....
While I applaud your overall point, I take umbrage with your first example. Michael Mann has made many fine films, enough that I can give him a pass if he wants to go back and try Miami Vice again as a feature.
The only games that can't migrate to the Wii are games that depend on having pretty, pretty graphics for much of their appeal, like the mainline Final Fantasy games or games like Shadow of the Colossus.
What an odd comment... while both games look great for what they are, FF is popular for its turn-based combat, and SotC is popular for its incredibly engaging storyline and art direction. Why can't those go to the Wii? (I admit I cannot see how you would play SotC with that remote-wand...)
I've never seen this particular point as an actual "big plus"...
Xbox Live has always been different than what Sony and Nintendo have been doing in the online arena (which is a whole lot of nothing atm). Sony's service probably won't have the same functionality as Xbox Live - which will now run cross-platform gaming with Windows gamers (big plus)
That sounds kind of neat, until you start getting your ass severly owned by mouse-toting PC gamers. In fact it makes the console's control scheme shortcomings glaringly obvious if you ask me. Halo PC player vs Halo xbox player? eeeccchhh. That's not even fair.
I'd like to see some more top-tier directors really get their hands dirty and stop trying to 'pair' a video game effort with whatever the latest film is (*cough*KingKong*cough). A modern game is arguably a more delicate and sophisticated medium than film, seeing as many games incorporate the gamut of film language, and then some. (I'm not just talking cut-scenes here.)
There are so many variables at work in a well-executed game that I would love to see an old-school film master like Spielberg really take a serious crack at it. I don't want a game tie-in to Munich, but I'd sure as hell like to see an immersive, provoking experience ('game' really saddles us, doesn't it?). Or something like Memento, which would really lend itself to multiple fracturing plotlines and up the replay value considerably.
To be fair Carmack's role is more along the lines of cinematographer then director.
He may be the headliner at ID, but he is the technical lead, not art/design.
Maybe a better analog would be:
Carmack is to video games as James Cameron is to cinema.
Not necessarily known for his directing efforts (such as they are) but definitely highly regarded for pioneering technical innovation.
(P.S. Hi John! How pleased are you that Google returns this picture for a search on your name?)
On the developer front, the general reaction to the Cell processor is "groan". (Except for audio guys, who finally get their very own CPU.) The Xbox 360 is a 3-CPU shared memory multiprocessor driving a conventional graphics chip, something well-understood by developers. Porting from an x86 PC (or an original XBox, which is an x86 PC) to an XBox 360 is straightforward. The Cell is a new, wierd architecture, little limited-memory CPUs with bulk DMA access to main memory. (Architecture people will remember unsuccessful supercomputers of the past organized like this.) In fact, Sony already has had a huge architectural disaster. Originally, the Cell was supposed to do the rendering. That was a dud, and Sony had to put a conventional graphics chip on the back end, running up the cost.
With my NerdHat on, that's interesting. Development tools will have an impact and alien codebases/trickery certainly provides a challenge - although one might argue that this same situation on the PS2, much lamented, seemed to really give the thing legs over time as new tricks and techniques were discovered.
As a gamer/customer, I could give a flying fuck. The console I want is hard to program? Yeah, I hear programming is hard! You need good math skills and everything. Sounds like a hard job. Better hire smart people to do it, huh?
On a slightly more serious note: I want powerful game hardware. If its tough to program for, then that is unfortunate, but irrelevant. PS2 was tough to program, but after 80 million of them shipped that problem just kind of vanished, didn't it? (And PS2 programmers made out like bandits for their l33t 5k1llz.)
Am I ticked about that? Yeah. I have enough spare cash floating around that I could be an early adopter, but I won't. $500 for a video game system (plus $40 for one more controller, plus $60 for ONE game so you're really looking at $600) is just ludicrous.
Is it really, though? I see people drop $600 on a 'Wintendo' all the time. Perhaps not in console numbers, but Alienware has proven that they will indeed spend much more than that.
Also, last 'round', many people bought two or three consoles, which sorta negates the price argument a bit as well. I think $600 is too much, but perhaps many others don't.
I think there is a lot of gameplay potential in the controller, and the average consumer probably doesn't care about how it works, especially if the games are fun. However, many of the people who have been conjecturing, and building up this mass of hype around the system might feel a bit let down when they don't end up with a magical virtual reality wand to play lightsaber with.
Granted, the studios don't seem to be using HDCP at the moment, but if they do eventually, you're screwed. Hello near SD resolution without buying a whole new player.
If they do that you're screwed anyways. We're all screwed. PS3 notwithstanding.
Here's to hoping that the lack of HDMI on the low-end model will keep content providers from ever implementing the ICT flag on movies. There's a slim chance that this move by Sony will keep that from happening.
I think Sony has done Microsoft a big favour, in a way.
Because neither the X360 in any config, nor the PS3 in the lower-end config, will do digital HD output (as opposed to analog component HD output, which is frankly fine)... there is an excellent chance that these two choices have basically stymied the idea of throttling the resolution over non-HDCP compliant cables. The penetration will simply not be there in the market.
My guess is, the content providers have been appraised of this situation, and have decided (for now) that the important thing is to let HDMI roll out at whatever pace it will, and continue to support HD resolutions over component. Because that's basically all anyone can hope for - hell, I bet the percentage of simply component-enabled TVs is still small, HD or no.
I'd still rather buy the cheaper and more innovative Wii, which I won't need to spend more money to upgrade.
Karma burning time...
I really, really hope the Wii lives up to the expectations set for it. I really do. Because if it sucks in any way, Nintendo is on such a pedestal in the community right now that they are going down hard if the Wii is not exactly what you are imagining.
I am extremely interested in that console, but specifically I want to know what its like to play for over an hour. I could easily see it being something that is fun for 20 minutes and then gets annoying (or tiring). Time will tell.
Sony can promise all they want in regard to their own movies. The minute a big studio decides to follow the "down-rezzing via component" path, however, is the minute that the $500 PS3 becomes a pain in the ass and not fully functional as a Blu-Ray player. That isn't FUD (or, if it is, then it's accurate, very possible FUD) because the people who pushed for the inclusion of that damned protection in the hardware are exactly the people who will be deciding whether or not to use it.
I agree - but I think Sony realizes that this is a class-action lawsuit waiting to happen. The minute they enable down-rez'd content and some rich bored dude with time to burn decides that he doesn't like having his firstgen HDTV crippled, out come the lawyers. Component inputs will still be a major standard for years to come.
I think that if Sony wants to not get caught in this gill net of self-inflected bad press, it needs to start flogging the PS3 hardware, and they need to do it with killer apps.
The PS3 is an impressive chunk of hardware, few would disagree. And the announced price is very high. Potential customers are gong to have a hard time understanding why they would want a console with a big harddrive, multiple processors, multiple cardslots, WiFi, HighDef and BluRay. They might know vaguely why these pieces are cool individually but (as Steve Jobs once famously said), its very hard to explain to customers a groundbreaking idea if they've never seen anything like it before.
What Sony needs is an iLife for PS3. It needs to be a PVR. It needs to be a photo editor connected to the web. It needs a video chat application. It needs a very polished iTunes-type storefront. All these things.
It seems to me that where Sony is making the mistake is not necessarily in how they have built and priced the PS3, but rather in articulating the long term vision that Sony has in mind. Microsoft has been very good at this. Nintendo has sucked, but the Wii controller is so whizzy that people forget about that.
If you ask me, the PSP launched a bit too early. UMDs, ideally, should've been 8cm mini Blu-Ray discs. Play them on a regular Blu-Ray player, and you get a full-length, complete DVD, as 8cm BRDs hold about the same as a DVD. So, buying the UMD let you watch movies on the go and at home at a standard that's more than OK for most people. If this compatibility moved over to the PS3, then the PSP would be a killer ap. Watch movies at home, play games at home, then take them with you on the go. Sure PSP games would be underpowered compared to a PS3 native game, but that's an advantage that Nintendo does not have (yet).
That... is a frickin' brilliant idea, I agree.
I understand they are working on a successor to the PSP, so who knows. Cheers.
Slashdot Mirror
While I applaud your overall point, I take umbrage with your first example. Michael Mann has made many fine films, enough that I can give him a pass if he wants to go back and try Miami Vice again as a feature.
Yes, of course. Those were all killer titles, every one of them.
I haven't finished sifting through all the PS1 games yet. Every one a gem.
I'd like to get ahead of the hate-curve now and say:
Wiiii Hate Nintendo. Curse you, $atoru Iwata!
Nice post. You forgot one:
- Zonk doesn't like Sony very much, can't help expressing this in repeated articles
(Although that is not imaginary.)
What an odd comment... while both games look great for what they are, FF is popular for its turn-based combat, and SotC is popular for its incredibly engaging storyline and art direction. Why can't those go to the Wii? (I admit I cannot see how you would play SotC with that remote-wand...)
Xbox Live has always been different than what Sony and Nintendo have been doing in the online arena (which is a whole lot of nothing atm). Sony's service probably won't have the same functionality as Xbox Live - which will now run cross-platform gaming with Windows gamers (big plus)
That sounds kind of neat, until you start getting your ass severly owned by mouse-toting PC gamers. In fact it makes the console's control scheme shortcomings glaringly obvious if you ask me. Halo PC player vs Halo xbox player? eeeccchhh. That's not even fair.
Microsoft should have copied Flickr and just gone straight to Gamma, then we wouldn't have these issues.
"Ribbons" = "Tabs"
There are so many variables at work in a well-executed game that I would love to see an old-school film master like Spielberg really take a serious crack at it. I don't want a game tie-in to Munich, but I'd sure as hell like to see an immersive, provoking experience ('game' really saddles us, doesn't it?). Or something like Memento, which would really lend itself to multiple fracturing plotlines and up the replay value considerably.
Videogame industry 2006 = film industry 1926.
Maybe a better analog would be:
Carmack is to video games as James Cameron is to cinema.
Not necessarily known for his directing efforts (such as they are) but definitely highly regarded for pioneering technical innovation.
(P.S. Hi John! How pleased are you that Google returns this picture for a search on your name?)
With my NerdHat on, that's interesting. Development tools will have an impact and alien codebases/trickery certainly provides a challenge - although one might argue that this same situation on the PS2, much lamented, seemed to really give the thing legs over time as new tricks and techniques were discovered.
As a gamer/customer, I could give a flying fuck. The console I want is hard to program? Yeah, I hear programming is hard! You need good math skills and everything. Sounds like a hard job. Better hire smart people to do it, huh?
On a slightly more serious note: I want powerful game hardware. If its tough to program for, then that is unfortunate, but irrelevant. PS2 was tough to program, but after 80 million of them shipped that problem just kind of vanished, didn't it? (And PS2 programmers made out like bandits for their l33t 5k1llz.)
Is it really, though? I see people drop $600 on a 'Wintendo' all the time. Perhaps not in console numbers, but Alienware has proven that they will indeed spend much more than that.
Also, last 'round', many people bought two or three consoles, which sorta negates the price argument a bit as well. I think $600 is too much, but perhaps many others don't.
My thoughts exactly. Thanks for the reply.
... that the 'Sony used a DVD+R for their BluRay Demo' meme will float into console fanboy lore, like the Toy Story claim...
Hmmmm... you make a cogent argument.
If they do that you're screwed anyways. We're all screwed. PS3 notwithstanding.
I think Sony has done Microsoft a big favour, in a way.
Because neither the X360 in any config, nor the PS3 in the lower-end config, will do digital HD output (as opposed to analog component HD output, which is frankly fine)... there is an excellent chance that these two choices have basically stymied the idea of throttling the resolution over non-HDCP compliant cables. The penetration will simply not be there in the market.
My guess is, the content providers have been appraised of this situation, and have decided (for now) that the important thing is to let HDMI roll out at whatever pace it will, and continue to support HD resolutions over component. Because that's basically all anyone can hope for - hell, I bet the percentage of simply component-enabled TVs is still small, HD or no.
Karma burning time...
I really, really hope the Wii lives up to the expectations set for it. I really do. Because if it sucks in any way, Nintendo is on such a pedestal in the community right now that they are going down hard if the Wii is not exactly what you are imagining.
I am extremely interested in that console, but specifically I want to know what its like to play for over an hour. I could easily see it being something that is fun for 20 minutes and then gets annoying (or tiring). Time will tell.
I agree - but I think Sony realizes that this is a class-action lawsuit waiting to happen. The minute they enable down-rez'd content and some rich bored dude with time to burn decides that he doesn't like having his firstgen HDTV crippled, out come the lawyers. Component inputs will still be a major standard for years to come.
This is the best Wii review I'v ever read.
What a fantastic sig. Love it.
You let your cards drop just a little too far there, fanboy.
You're an asshat.
Sincerely, thatguywhoiam
The PS3 is an impressive chunk of hardware, few would disagree. And the announced price is very high. Potential customers are gong to have a hard time understanding why they would want a console with a big harddrive, multiple processors, multiple cardslots, WiFi, HighDef and BluRay. They might know vaguely why these pieces are cool individually but (as Steve Jobs once famously said), its very hard to explain to customers a groundbreaking idea if they've never seen anything like it before.
What Sony needs is an iLife for PS3. It needs to be a PVR. It needs to be a photo editor connected to the web. It needs a video chat application. It needs a very polished iTunes-type storefront. All these things.
It seems to me that where Sony is making the mistake is not necessarily in how they have built and priced the PS3, but rather in articulating the long term vision that Sony has in mind. Microsoft has been very good at this. Nintendo has sucked, but the Wii controller is so whizzy that people forget about that.
That... is a frickin' brilliant idea, I agree.
I understand they are working on a successor to the PSP, so who knows. Cheers.