I used to enjoy Nova back in the day. PBS and GBH were the greatest channels ever (once TMNT and Ghostbusters were done). We had tons of episodes of Nova taped on subjects ranging from the Voyager probes visiting Uranus to Ants to the human body.
I recently watched an episode on String Theory and it wasn't anywhere near the quality of the old show.
It will be innovation, but not all the same innovation.
Hardware innovation - There will be specialized equipment required for this, whether its headsets, body suits, a Matrix-esque server or a holodeck. The development of this is innovation.
Graphical innovation - Somewhat tied into the hardware innovation, but also something that can be pushed at a software level. This is also innovation.
Input and/or Gameplay innovation - How people actually code and use the system is a separate innovation from the others. If all someone does is use the equipment to play the original PacMan on their TV, that's not innovation (although it might be an interesting, if pointless, adaptation of the technology). If someone creates a game where you run screaming for your life collecting orbs as ghosts threaten to eat your soul, that would be innovation.
The key here is in understanding what kind of innovation is being talking about. You're obviously interested in graphical innovation. However, the point of the "jam session" and what the GP is getting at is that this is completely different and separate from input or gameplay innovation.
Greetings to you Voice of Reason. I see you have gotten lost and posted here at the games section of Slashdot. I recommend you install Fanboi Filter 2007 as well as Flame Reflector 2.0. You may also need to make sure your system is plugged into a wall socket of intelligence in order to keep your battery IQ from draining.
I think the lack of enthusiasm for the PS3 will help it in the long run because the hardware is so impressive.
Am I the only one that finds this statement confusing? If the hardware is so impressive, why the lack of enthusiasm and how does that help the PS3 in the long run?
Considering that the single player market is the largest, and it's the market that drove the PS1 and 2 to success, I don't see how the PS3 couldn't come out on top.
I disagree. The online-multiplayer market may be the smallest but you're neglecting the fact that a great many people play video games with friends. Many people don't play video games alone at all.
Certainly the single player market is large, but that alone didn't push the PS1 forward. I spent as much time playing my PS1 and PS2 with other people as I did alone. Ignore that function of the system at your peril.
I guess we should give these analysts some credit for not going wild on the predictions of X company's victory, but they were still rather vague and at the same time uncommittal in their prognostications.
I'm not a market analyst, and I'm also not a fanboy (though I've been accused of being one for each system in turn). Perhaps my own predictions have simply been lucky of late, but I did believe that the DS and the Wii would succeed before it was popular to think so, though the systems have out performed my speculations.
However, looking back I was wrong about the Xbox 360. I didn't think they'd break 6 million consoles before Sony came on the scene, and I also expected a much better showing from Sony.
Perhaps that's why I'm not an analyst. They aren't paid to be wrong, they're paid to make predictions that are just vague enough such that they can't be wrong, without being obviously inconclusive. I just enjoy speculating too much with the mental caviat that I know I could be hideously wrong.
In any case, I will make one prediction. The best thing for the industry would be for all three systems to succeed. Whatever ills Sony has perpatrated, however much money Microsoft has used to buy their way in, whoever buys the Wii or doesn't, arguing that any of these three would help only if they exited the arena seems close-minded.
If you become one, send me a link. I'd read your drivel over their anyday.
Why? Because you go out on a limb. Everything the guys in the articles said was about as vague and uncommital as it comes. One guy even went so far as to note everything could change on him and ruin his predictions! While that was honest of him, the least he could have done was be somewhat more specific with his predictions.
The scenario you've detailed is highly interesting. The potential graphical supiriority of the PS3 means very little if, just as it is being exploited, Microsoft launches an Xbox 720.
In order for such an idea to be feasible, Microsoft has several hurdles to overcome.
1) Shareholders - They need to be on board with the plan. They're looking for Microsoft to make profit on the 360. The 720 would probably delay profitting again. 2) 360 Owners - $400 is a lot to drop on a console that'll be obsolete in so short a time. Aside from being natively backwards compatible with 360 titles, the 720 would have to throw a bone to previous Xbox users. Otherwise I'm not suer they'd put up with a second 4 year iteration. 3) Mii Tuu - For what it's worth, Microsoft could add Wii-like functionality at the same time. This is rather optional. 4) HD - By 2009, it should be clear whether going for HD-DVD is worthwhile (and cheap) enough to make default.
Honestly, I would assume it depends on how Microsoft is doing in comparison to Sony next year. If in May of 2008 Microsoft is trumping Sony, they'll sit back and relax. There's no reason to rush a 720 unless the competition remains fierce. If things are close, or Sony starts gaining momentum, then we may actually see you right.
I remember watching a video online of some teenagers who wanted to destroy their Gamecube. They hitched it up by a chain or rope to the back of their truck and dragged it along a dirt road at about 30-40 mph. The thing was bouncing everywhere, twisting and turning in the air before crashing back down on the rocky ground.
They took it home afterwards, plugged everything in and were still able to play SSB:M no problem.
Then they took a baseball bat to the thing, that did it in, but only barely. The beast still managed to boot and tried to load the game but crashed.
When I bought my Xbox 360 and the cashier did the standard spiel about a replacement plan, I figured it was worthwhile. When I bought my Wii, I said "no" without a second thought. I've seen enough of what can be done to Nintendo's consoles both firsthand and on the net to know that any "insurance" for their systems is pretty much a schill.
Actually, the Marathon analogy does work. The problem is people just don't know anything about Marathons.
In a Marathon, there's generally a nice pack of people leading the way. Almost like the Tour de France, this pack has benefits both psychological and physiological. They're keeping each other to pace, slicing the wind for each other etc.
It can be very hard in a Marathon to break from the pack because you lose the support it provides. It can be done, but it's hard. However, a good Marathon runner will only suffer returning to the pack if their caught, though a bad one may overexert themselves and be completely passed.
However, it is far, far harder to try and catch up with the pack. Once you're behind the pack no only do you lack the support it provides, but you are even granted the momentum that leading the race gives. You're behind, without help, and even if you catch the pack that doesn't mean much if the pack is chasing a breakaway.
It's not impossible to come from behind and win, nor is it impossible for early breakaways to win (though often they overexert themselves and fall back). However, it can be very difficult in both cases.
As it stands, Microsoft might be considered the breakaway, Sony the one lagging behind, and Nintendo resting with the pack. Each has a different pressure on them (win, catch the pack, and catch the breakaway respectively), if they want to win.
This is what I get for living on the route of the Boston Marathon for 22 years.
I think a point to be made is that Sony may need to take hits in revenue and profit if they want the PS3, and blu-ray, to succeed. Dropping the price would definately hurt their revenue, but it would also encourage PS3 sales.
Now, it may be that they aren't prepared to handle increased PS3 sales. There may be unsold PS3s, but they are preparing for another launch in March. If they can have a very good supply for the EU, it might encourage the other markets as well. If/when supply far exceeds demand we may see a price drop. Too soon and they'll simply be out of stock all over again, which defeats the very purpose.
I have to agree, I'm not sure anyone can "lose" this generation aside from Sony.
No one doubts Nintendo would make money and gobs of it, even if the Wii only had half the market share it had last time. Everyone knows Nintendo is very good at making money.
No one doubts Microsoft will keep plugging along. Even if they don't make money they've garnered a place in the industry and aren't likely to give it up. Even should they get thoroughly trumped later, they'll come back.
Everyone doubts Sony, and not because of bad press. There was concern a while ago that Sony was overly reliant on their games division for profit. In many ways it was keeping the boat out of troubled waters. After E3 2005, no one was very worried anymore because it was obvious the PS3 was killer. It would sell, Blu-ray would become prolific, and Sony would have successfully leveraged one industry to make others profitable.
However, after that we had several bombshells. There was the price, the cutbacks on shipments and the delayed games. These have once again brought up the dual potential of the PS3. It has the ability to not only make the games division profitable, but boost the movie and hardware divisions sales as well. At the same time, it also has the ability to kill all three.
Of the big three, Sony is the only one in a position to lose. Whether because of ill-will engendered from foolish comments, or because humanity loves a fight to the death, people want to see Sony lose.
I disagree that the R&D is insignificant. Someone has to evaluate those off the shelf components, bring them together, make them work, find a way to mass manufacture the official remotes, design or adapt it all to the console, and get developers onboard making games.
Then there's also advertising and PR. Both companies would have to explain to the public their plans for the new controllers, why they developed them, and how theirs will be comparable/better than Nintendo's.
It certainly isn't difficult to just throw something together and have it "work". But "working" is short of "ready for public consumption". Not to mention avoiding violating any prior patents, especialy those held by Nintendo.
1. We do see a lot of successful people come in late, but for every one of those there are many, many stories of failures and broken dreams that never see the light of day. The job of selling the concept may be largely complete, but the job of selling your take on it has only just begun.
2. I'm not sure everyone else wouldn't care. There were a lot of people outside of the Nintendo camp who criticized the SIXAXIS.
3. It's more than a pointing device, it has accelerometers, a speaker, rumble and even memory space to store Miis. I can't say I like the direction your tone is taking. It seems rather close-minded.
4. Not everything that comes with a console succeeds, even controllers (See R.O.B, the original Xbox controller). To boot, that would mean that Sony and Microsoft would be increasing the production costs of their consoles and potentially raise the price or the hit they take per system. Most importantly, the functionality of a pointer controller is very different from the current controllers the 360 and PS3, unlike the Dualshock which was the original PS1 controller with analog sticks.
6. Perhaps it's anecdotal, but I never owned a Dualshock until I bought a PS2. I'm pretty sure that Armored Core's legendary (for being difficult) control setup was because they did not utilize the analog sticks.
Either way, it's far easier to take a D-Pad's functionality and expand it to a joystick/analog stick than it is to make the same move to motion sensing/pointing.
I'm not saying Microsoft and Sony couldn't copy and succeed with a pointer for their consoles, but I am saying there are significant reasons why they might not try and possibly fail.
The Stone Age didn't consist of one generation of people but many. The same is true here.
I'm not sure where I'd divide the first and second ages of video games (perhaps pre and post polygonal?), but I don't doubt that we're entering a new age.
I'll definately second the point about strengths, with some more comments about Sony.
I don't have much doubt that eventually the graphical differences between the 360 and the PS3 will become clear. In a year or two (or three) there won't be much question that the PS3 has the greater horsepower. The Cell simply has that potential, however excruciatingly difficult it may be to access.
Which is why Microsoft definately needs to either kill Sony now (unlikely, despite the bad press Sony seems to attract) or build up their Live and other online services. Integrating the system with Vista is an interesting idea, and one we'll have to see how it pans out.
I'll also note that Nintendo has the unique opportunity to completely blow it. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if they get high on the DS and Wii sales and forget to make sweet games on the Wii to showcase what it can do they may lose all of their momentum.
Anyway, it's a great time to be a gamer. If all the companies play to their strengths we could have 3 unique and worthwhile systems to own.
Lots of PC gamers have become halo players on the Xbox. Pretty inexplicable to me, since I won't give up mouse control in FPSes either. I refuse to play an FPS without one.
There can be lots of reasons for this, many of which relate to Halo being fun, and PC gamers being friends with console gamers. The two aren't as different as we might think.
That is simply not true. You can have analog buttons. The Dual Shock 2 has them. Presumably SIXAXIS does as well but I haven't checked.
It is true, in the context of A and B buttons (or X and O in Sony's case). Analog buttons or the triggers are a slightly different, more interesting, beast. However, most popular racing games I'm familiar with weren't played with those for acceleration by random people like me. If they had that option I was missing out.
In a FPS on a typical console controller, you are required to use one joystick to aim your target reticule. Imagine trying to do the same thing on a PC. Any PC gamer would tell you it's ridiculous and go back to using their mouse.
The beauty of pointing is that it is simple and realistic, while freeing my thumb up for more important matters. I point where I want to shoot, and I shoot. Soldiers in real life do not fiddle around with joysticks on their guns to fire.
That is, of course, only one use for pointing. You can use it to zoom in and out of an image for a Where's Waldo game, interact with a puppy in a Nintendog's style pet game, direct armies in a RTS (something consoles have long struggled with), or even draw.
These things are possible with the current controllers, but a pointer does them better.
Regarding waggling...
Waggling has far more potential than even pointing. The vast arrays of minigames that have been derived ala Rayaman and WarioWare are testaments to that. Then you have other concepts such as Excite Truck where it works as a steering wheel. It, like pointing, is a dynamic interface with your game environment.
Claiming that "waggling" only replaces A and B buttons completely neglects the limitations of a button. In racing games, hitting a button to accelerate is the equivalent of flooring the gas pedal. You have absolutely no control save on and off, and the durations or repetition of each therein. With a waggle, the severity, speed, direction, twist and other factors can be used to define control.
The "waggle" does more than replace the buttons, but surpasses them. Any failure of your friend to come up with any better example than a light saber is his alone.
Your complaints eerily mimic those levied against the DS when it first was released. It may not have happened immediately, but incredible games were made using the new interface. While the Wii's remote is not above criticism, yours speak more of ignorance than of insight.
Even assuming that retailers sit on Wiis and then release them on weekends, that doesn't change the fact that the entire horde they save vanishes within 6 minutes of opening Sunday morning.
If you're going to claim Wii hype is dying you're going to need more than an AC post and an anecdote, especially when there are a myriad of articles that can be cited against you as evidence.
Firstly, I'd like some statistics on the lightgun/PS2 ratio. In my circle of friends there were probably 2 dozen PS2s and one lightgun.
Secondly, there's a lot to prevent the PS3 and 360 from stealing Nintendo's thunder.
1. R&D. In order for this to work they need to put time and money into it. If they don't, the quality of their work will suffer and not come close to what Nintendo offers.
2. Copycatting. Sony came under enough fire for their SIXAXIS being a cheap knock off aimed at stealing the Wii's thunder. Imagine the jeers at an outright, blatant copy.
3. Difficulty. The Dual-Shock was extremely easy to incorporate into existing games because they were basically mini-joysticks. Joysticks had already been around for years, so there were plenty of people already experienced with them. However, the Wii's remote has no predecessor in the gaming medium.
4. Cost. With the Wii, you're spending $250 for the whole package. Because any other console would require such an addon to be bought separately, you're looking at $60 extra minimum for a single remote and sensor combo, which is in addition to however many of the $50 regular controllers you bought. All of that is on top of $300 minimum for the cheap Xbox 360, or $500 for the PS3. The Wii is obviously the cheapest option.
5. Development. As neither Sony nor Microsoft has announced an add-on, it is highly unlikely any titles currently in developement would use such a tool. Given the development time on AAA titles, chances are we wouldn't see one completed using this system on the PS3 or 360 until past the midpoint this generation.
6. Default. The Dual-Shock did well when it was introduced with the PS1, but it did not come unto its own until it was made the default controller for the PS2. The importance of being the default control mechanism for a system can not be stressed enough, as developers tend to target the lowest common denominator. It's safe, and keep them out of the red and get bought by EA.
It is entirely possible that the remote will never have a game that truly shows what it can do. It's also possible that Sony and Microsoft will successfully release their own copy-cat controllers to combat Nintendo. However, their success isn't guaranteed and will require more than a rushed R&D job to be a serious threat to Nintendo.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but then again you were as well.
The disc you mentioned isn't a game in and of itself, hence why it wouldn't matter in a list of backwards compatible games. It may enable games, but that doesn't make it a game anymore than an emulator is a game.
Your post makes me wonder if we'll see DSLitesque sellouts.
From what other responders have said, the DSLite remains sold out even as we approach its first birthday. Were the Wii to duplicate that kind of demand, it's only criticism could likely be Nintendo's failure to provide adaquate supply.
I sincerely hope they can meet demand sooner rather than later. Eventually some rather beautiful and stunning games will come out for the PS3 and 360, and if Nintendo doesn't match those in a timely fashion with games that really show what their controller can do they may lose the momentum they have.
Slashdot Mirror
I used to enjoy Nova back in the day. PBS and GBH were the greatest channels ever (once TMNT and Ghostbusters were done). We had tons of episodes of Nova taped on subjects ranging from the Voyager probes visiting Uranus to Ants to the human body.
I recently watched an episode on String Theory and it wasn't anywhere near the quality of the old show.
I took a cursory look at the links, but I honestly have no idea who the guy is or why he's important.
Someone care to enlighten me? Or should I use my TV for something other than video games?
It will be innovation, but not all the same innovation.
Hardware innovation - There will be specialized equipment required for this, whether its headsets, body suits, a Matrix-esque server or a holodeck. The development of this is innovation.
Graphical innovation - Somewhat tied into the hardware innovation, but also something that can be pushed at a software level. This is also innovation.
Input and/or Gameplay innovation - How people actually code and use the system is a separate innovation from the others. If all someone does is use the equipment to play the original PacMan on their TV, that's not innovation (although it might be an interesting, if pointless, adaptation of the technology). If someone creates a game where you run screaming for your life collecting orbs as ghosts threaten to eat your soul, that would be innovation.
The key here is in understanding what kind of innovation is being talking about. You're obviously interested in graphical innovation. However, the point of the "jam session" and what the GP is getting at is that this is completely different and separate from input or gameplay innovation.
http://www.next-gen.biz/index.php?option=com_conte nt&task=view&id=4628&Itemid=2
Unreal 3 engine, but the game name is Unreal Tournament 3. Note the added word, Tournament.
Greetings to you Voice of Reason. I see you have gotten lost and posted here at the games section of Slashdot. I recommend you install Fanboi Filter 2007 as well as Flame Reflector 2.0. You may also need to make sure your system is plugged into a wall socket of intelligence in order to keep your battery IQ from draining.
Enjoy your stay!
Certainly the single player market is large, but that alone didn't push the PS1 forward. I spent as much time playing my PS1 and PS2 with other people as I did alone. Ignore that function of the system at your peril.
I guess we should give these analysts some credit for not going wild on the predictions of X company's victory, but they were still rather vague and at the same time uncommittal in their prognostications.
I'm not a market analyst, and I'm also not a fanboy (though I've been accused of being one for each system in turn). Perhaps my own predictions have simply been lucky of late, but I did believe that the DS and the Wii would succeed before it was popular to think so, though the systems have out performed my speculations.
However, looking back I was wrong about the Xbox 360. I didn't think they'd break 6 million consoles before Sony came on the scene, and I also expected a much better showing from Sony.
Perhaps that's why I'm not an analyst. They aren't paid to be wrong, they're paid to make predictions that are just vague enough such that they can't be wrong, without being obviously inconclusive. I just enjoy speculating too much with the mental caviat that I know I could be hideously wrong.
In any case, I will make one prediction. The best thing for the industry would be for all three systems to succeed. Whatever ills Sony has perpatrated, however much money Microsoft has used to buy their way in, whoever buys the Wii or doesn't, arguing that any of these three would help only if they exited the arena seems close-minded.
Why? Because you go out on a limb. Everything the guys in the articles said was about as vague and uncommital as it comes. One guy even went so far as to note everything could change on him and ruin his predictions! While that was honest of him, the least he could have done was be somewhat more specific with his predictions.
The scenario you've detailed is highly interesting. The potential graphical supiriority of the PS3 means very little if, just as it is being exploited, Microsoft launches an Xbox 720.
In order for such an idea to be feasible, Microsoft has several hurdles to overcome.
1) Shareholders - They need to be on board with the plan. They're looking for Microsoft to make profit on the 360. The 720 would probably delay profitting again.
2) 360 Owners - $400 is a lot to drop on a console that'll be obsolete in so short a time. Aside from being natively backwards compatible with 360 titles, the 720 would have to throw a bone to previous Xbox users. Otherwise I'm not suer they'd put up with a second 4 year iteration.
3) Mii Tuu - For what it's worth, Microsoft could add Wii-like functionality at the same time. This is rather optional.
4) HD - By 2009, it should be clear whether going for HD-DVD is worthwhile (and cheap) enough to make default.
Honestly, I would assume it depends on how Microsoft is doing in comparison to Sony next year. If in May of 2008 Microsoft is trumping Sony, they'll sit back and relax. There's no reason to rush a 720 unless the competition remains fierce. If things are close, or Sony starts gaining momentum, then we may actually see you right.
I remember watching a video online of some teenagers who wanted to destroy their Gamecube. They hitched it up by a chain or rope to the back of their truck and dragged it along a dirt road at about 30-40 mph. The thing was bouncing everywhere, twisting and turning in the air before crashing back down on the rocky ground.
They took it home afterwards, plugged everything in and were still able to play SSB:M no problem.
Then they took a baseball bat to the thing, that did it in, but only barely. The beast still managed to boot and tried to load the game but crashed.
When I bought my Xbox 360 and the cashier did the standard spiel about a replacement plan, I figured it was worthwhile. When I bought my Wii, I said "no" without a second thought. I've seen enough of what can be done to Nintendo's consoles both firsthand and on the net to know that any "insurance" for their systems is pretty much a schill.
Actually, the Marathon analogy does work. The problem is people just don't know anything about Marathons.
In a Marathon, there's generally a nice pack of people leading the way. Almost like the Tour de France, this pack has benefits both psychological and physiological. They're keeping each other to pace, slicing the wind for each other etc.
It can be very hard in a Marathon to break from the pack because you lose the support it provides. It can be done, but it's hard. However, a good Marathon runner will only suffer returning to the pack if their caught, though a bad one may overexert themselves and be completely passed.
However, it is far, far harder to try and catch up with the pack. Once you're behind the pack no only do you lack the support it provides, but you are even granted the momentum that leading the race gives. You're behind, without help, and even if you catch the pack that doesn't mean much if the pack is chasing a breakaway.
It's not impossible to come from behind and win, nor is it impossible for early breakaways to win (though often they overexert themselves and fall back). However, it can be very difficult in both cases.
As it stands, Microsoft might be considered the breakaway, Sony the one lagging behind, and Nintendo resting with the pack. Each has a different pressure on them (win, catch the pack, and catch the breakaway respectively), if they want to win.
This is what I get for living on the route of the Boston Marathon for 22 years.
I think a point to be made is that Sony may need to take hits in revenue and profit if they want the PS3, and blu-ray, to succeed. Dropping the price would definately hurt their revenue, but it would also encourage PS3 sales.
Now, it may be that they aren't prepared to handle increased PS3 sales. There may be unsold PS3s, but they are preparing for another launch in March. If they can have a very good supply for the EU, it might encourage the other markets as well. If/when supply far exceeds demand we may see a price drop. Too soon and they'll simply be out of stock all over again, which defeats the very purpose.
I have to agree, I'm not sure anyone can "lose" this generation aside from Sony.
No one doubts Nintendo would make money and gobs of it, even if the Wii only had half the market share it had last time. Everyone knows Nintendo is very good at making money.
No one doubts Microsoft will keep plugging along. Even if they don't make money they've garnered a place in the industry and aren't likely to give it up. Even should they get thoroughly trumped later, they'll come back.
Everyone doubts Sony, and not because of bad press. There was concern a while ago that Sony was overly reliant on their games division for profit. In many ways it was keeping the boat out of troubled waters. After E3 2005, no one was very worried anymore because it was obvious the PS3 was killer. It would sell, Blu-ray would become prolific, and Sony would have successfully leveraged one industry to make others profitable.
However, after that we had several bombshells. There was the price, the cutbacks on shipments and the delayed games. These have once again brought up the dual potential of the PS3. It has the ability to not only make the games division profitable, but boost the movie and hardware divisions sales as well. At the same time, it also has the ability to kill all three.
Of the big three, Sony is the only one in a position to lose. Whether because of ill-will engendered from foolish comments, or because humanity loves a fight to the death, people want to see Sony lose.
I disagree that the R&D is insignificant. Someone has to evaluate those off the shelf components, bring them together, make them work, find a way to mass manufacture the official remotes, design or adapt it all to the console, and get developers onboard making games.
Then there's also advertising and PR. Both companies would have to explain to the public their plans for the new controllers, why they developed them, and how theirs will be comparable/better than Nintendo's.
It certainly isn't difficult to just throw something together and have it "work". But "working" is short of "ready for public consumption". Not to mention avoiding violating any prior patents, especialy those held by Nintendo.
1. We do see a lot of successful people come in late, but for every one of those there are many, many stories of failures and broken dreams that never see the light of day. The job of selling the concept may be largely complete, but the job of selling your take on it has only just begun.
2. I'm not sure everyone else wouldn't care. There were a lot of people outside of the Nintendo camp who criticized the SIXAXIS.
3. It's more than a pointing device, it has accelerometers, a speaker, rumble and even memory space to store Miis. I can't say I like the direction your tone is taking. It seems rather close-minded.
4. Not everything that comes with a console succeeds, even controllers (See R.O.B, the original Xbox controller). To boot, that would mean that Sony and Microsoft would be increasing the production costs of their consoles and potentially raise the price or the hit they take per system. Most importantly, the functionality of a pointer controller is very different from the current controllers the 360 and PS3, unlike the Dualshock which was the original PS1 controller with analog sticks.
6. Perhaps it's anecdotal, but I never owned a Dualshock until I bought a PS2. I'm pretty sure that Armored Core's legendary (for being difficult) control setup was because they did not utilize the analog sticks.
Either way, it's far easier to take a D-Pad's functionality and expand it to a joystick/analog stick than it is to make the same move to motion sensing/pointing.
I'm not saying Microsoft and Sony couldn't copy and succeed with a pointer for their consoles, but I am saying there are significant reasons why they might not try and possibly fail.
He didn't say generation, he said age.
The Stone Age didn't consist of one generation of people but many. The same is true here.
I'm not sure where I'd divide the first and second ages of video games (perhaps pre and post polygonal?), but I don't doubt that we're entering a new age.
I usually skip the comments, thanks for pointing that out. It will be interesting to see where this goes.
If it's true that Sony shares a large part of the blame, they'll want to fix it quickly and quietly.
As interesting as that would be, it's not going to happen if they can't keep everything in stock, or at least up their production rates.
I'll definately second the point about strengths, with some more comments about Sony.
I don't have much doubt that eventually the graphical differences between the 360 and the PS3 will become clear. In a year or two (or three) there won't be much question that the PS3 has the greater horsepower. The Cell simply has that potential, however excruciatingly difficult it may be to access.
Which is why Microsoft definately needs to either kill Sony now (unlikely, despite the bad press Sony seems to attract) or build up their Live and other online services. Integrating the system with Vista is an interesting idea, and one we'll have to see how it pans out.
I'll also note that Nintendo has the unique opportunity to completely blow it. I'm not saying it's going to happen, but if they get high on the DS and Wii sales and forget to make sweet games on the Wii to showcase what it can do they may lose all of their momentum.
Anyway, it's a great time to be a gamer. If all the companies play to their strengths we could have 3 unique and worthwhile systems to own.
There can be lots of reasons for this, many of which relate to Halo being fun, and PC gamers being friends with console gamers. The two aren't as different as we might think.
It is true, in the context of A and B buttons (or X and O in Sony's case). Analog buttons or the triggers are a slightly different, more interesting, beast. However, most popular racing games I'm familiar with weren't played with those for acceleration by random people like me. If they had that option I was missing out.
Your summary neglects the elegance of the setup.
Regarding pointing...
In a FPS on a typical console controller, you are required to use one joystick to aim your target reticule. Imagine trying to do the same thing on a PC. Any PC gamer would tell you it's ridiculous and go back to using their mouse.
The beauty of pointing is that it is simple and realistic, while freeing my thumb up for more important matters. I point where I want to shoot, and I shoot. Soldiers in real life do not fiddle around with joysticks on their guns to fire.
That is, of course, only one use for pointing. You can use it to zoom in and out of an image for a Where's Waldo game, interact with a puppy in a Nintendog's style pet game, direct armies in a RTS (something consoles have long struggled with), or even draw.
These things are possible with the current controllers, but a pointer does them better.
Regarding waggling...
Waggling has far more potential than even pointing. The vast arrays of minigames that have been derived ala Rayaman and WarioWare are testaments to that. Then you have other concepts such as Excite Truck where it works as a steering wheel. It, like pointing, is a dynamic interface with your game environment.
Claiming that "waggling" only replaces A and B buttons completely neglects the limitations of a button. In racing games, hitting a button to accelerate is the equivalent of flooring the gas pedal. You have absolutely no control save on and off, and the durations or repetition of each therein. With a waggle, the severity, speed, direction, twist and other factors can be used to define control.
The "waggle" does more than replace the buttons, but surpasses them. Any failure of your friend to come up with any better example than a light saber is his alone.
Your complaints eerily mimic those levied against the DS when it first was released. It may not have happened immediately, but incredible games were made using the new interface. While the Wii's remote is not above criticism, yours speak more of ignorance than of insight.
Even assuming that retailers sit on Wiis and then release them on weekends, that doesn't change the fact that the entire horde they save vanishes within 6 minutes of opening Sunday morning.
If you're going to claim Wii hype is dying you're going to need more than an AC post and an anecdote, especially when there are a myriad of articles that can be cited against you as evidence.
Firstly, I'd like some statistics on the lightgun/PS2 ratio. In my circle of friends there were probably 2 dozen PS2s and one lightgun.
Secondly, there's a lot to prevent the PS3 and 360 from stealing Nintendo's thunder.
1. R&D. In order for this to work they need to put time and money into it. If they don't, the quality of their work will suffer and not come close to what Nintendo offers.
2. Copycatting. Sony came under enough fire for their SIXAXIS being a cheap knock off aimed at stealing the Wii's thunder. Imagine the jeers at an outright, blatant copy.
3. Difficulty. The Dual-Shock was extremely easy to incorporate into existing games because they were basically mini-joysticks. Joysticks had already been around for years, so there were plenty of people already experienced with them. However, the Wii's remote has no predecessor in the gaming medium.
4. Cost. With the Wii, you're spending $250 for the whole package. Because any other console would require such an addon to be bought separately, you're looking at $60 extra minimum for a single remote and sensor combo, which is in addition to however many of the $50 regular controllers you bought. All of that is on top of $300 minimum for the cheap Xbox 360, or $500 for the PS3. The Wii is obviously the cheapest option.
5. Development. As neither Sony nor Microsoft has announced an add-on, it is highly unlikely any titles currently in developement would use such a tool. Given the development time on AAA titles, chances are we wouldn't see one completed using this system on the PS3 or 360 until past the midpoint this generation.
6. Default. The Dual-Shock did well when it was introduced with the PS1, but it did not come unto its own until it was made the default controller for the PS2. The importance of being the default control mechanism for a system can not be stressed enough, as developers tend to target the lowest common denominator. It's safe, and keep them out of the red and get bought by EA.
It is entirely possible that the remote will never have a game that truly shows what it can do. It's also possible that Sony and Microsoft will successfully release their own copy-cat controllers to combat Nintendo. However, their success isn't guaranteed and will require more than a rushed R&D job to be a serious threat to Nintendo.
Maybe I'm nitpicking, but then again you were as well.
The disc you mentioned isn't a game in and of itself, hence why it wouldn't matter in a list of backwards compatible games. It may enable games, but that doesn't make it a game anymore than an emulator is a game.
Your post makes me wonder if we'll see DSLitesque sellouts.
From what other responders have said, the DSLite remains sold out even as we approach its first birthday. Were the Wii to duplicate that kind of demand, it's only criticism could likely be Nintendo's failure to provide adaquate supply.
I sincerely hope they can meet demand sooner rather than later. Eventually some rather beautiful and stunning games will come out for the PS3 and 360, and if Nintendo doesn't match those in a timely fashion with games that really show what their controller can do they may lose the momentum they have.