OXCGN Debates
?2011 Nicholas Laborde and David Hilton
As such, we are, for the most part, very opinionated people.
I got into a very heated debate (as usual) with our very own second-in-command, David Hilton; this time, over the candidacy of a new generation of consoles.
Many excellent points are made, and describing it would be as if the famous unstoppable force met the infamous immovable object.
Read on to see what our future may hold.
Nicholas Laborde:
Our topic today is a fateful one: New consoles.
We need them. Current generation consoles, as noted in a piece by me recently, are outdated pieces of crap. We need the new, because until then, we?ll see Brown and Bloom Shooter 63 every year until more power is at the disposal of developers. Otherwise, the PC will continue to grow as it is generally unrestricted and can offer the most for titles such as Battlefield 3.
If a game such as Battlefield 3 runs watered-down on consoles but unrestricted on PC, it?s simply not fair.
If you?re a player such as myself that has the best of both worlds, it works in your favor; I?m all for everyone joining in the fun, as I fly no flag of bigot allegiance.
But when the PC versions of games are far outrivaling that of their console brethren, it?s a clear indicator that we need to move on.
David Hilton:
David's first (and favorite) console
Well, youngling, I remember the days when consoles had no hope of matching the PC. They actually sold pretty well and provided some different gaming experiences.
One of the reasons for this was that PCs were a pain in the ass for the layperson to deal with: having games that didn?t work because you didn?t have the right upgrades made for some expensive and annoying gaming.
With consoles you didn?t have to fiddle with settings or know much about computers; it was plug and play.
These days consoles are much more like computers with their constant updates and online focus. But the layperson can still be pretty sure they are buying a system that will run all the games made for that system (unless we go into additions like Kinect and Move).
While I admire your charitable conviction that console gamers should experience the same power and experience as the PC crowd there are two problems: 1) Consoles will never keep up (as described earlier) and 2) The costs of buying new consoles every 4-5 years in our current economic climate and the annoyance at constantly having your pride and joy superseded not long after will drive some to give up gaming altogether.
As for innovation (getting away from ?Brown and Bloom? shooters), this is dictated by the consumers (what they keep buying), the publishers (what they think makes money) and the developers (what they actually can create using imagination and skills).
Plenty of low power XBLA or PSN or iOS games are much more creative and innovative than those with the ?super powers?.
NL:
Innovation can come from nowhere!
In all respect, I do cede to you the fact that PCs can be mind-boggling experiences to the uneducated.
But I have to strike you down on the points of continually upgrading, which implies pricey figures.
A common misconception is that PC gamers buy every single new video card or CPU that comes out; it?s quite the opposite. Top of the line PCs are becoming cheaper and cheaper to build, and can last longer and longer.
When I built my first PC in August of 2009 using all top-of-the-line parts, it came out to $2700. I built a new one this past April, again, all top of the line, and it came out to around $1400.
While those figures are indeed pricey, as the PC is vastly ahead in terms of power and as such cannot ascend too far ahead of consoles, there is little need to go much farther in the GPU and CPU departments, so things are becoming much more affordable as we wait for the next big ?leap.?
To tackle your innovation topic, I agree, but in my opinion what the industry is being held back by is a misconception that ?it?s all been done.?
That?s what we thought when we invented the automobile; that?s what we thought when we invented the computer; that?s what we thought when we went to the moon (and it was true, thank you debt crisis!); how do you think John Carmack felt during the creation of Wolfenstein 3D? Do you think he knew he would pioneer the future standard of gaming and forever leave an impression upon the industry?
Our minds needs to become far more open if we want to see any sort of change. Otherwise, we?ll continually drag ourselves deeper into the same abysmal pit.
DH:
Obligatory...
Open minds! Like that?s going to happen if all we look at are true 1080p and 60fps and 80 people online multi and 3 bloody D! Graphics and power!
You know that above most else I love gaming environments to explore. That means graphics are pretty important to me. But you can have lots of pretty environments and lots of graphically gory blood-splosions, but that doesn?t make innovation.
As long as we consumers keep buying the same old stuff over and over that?s what we?ll get: samey shooters. It?s about business, now more that ever, and devs taking risks can get hammered.
It doesn?t matter how powerful your PC or console is. The goal now is to make a game that is similar to previous games (to keep the fans of the old game buying) but with new improved visuals and effects. If we keep upgrading our consoles we just fall into that trap and innovation can just die.
Now if games hit a visual ceiling, then they don?t just focus on the visuals and effects to be a point of difference, but on -gasp- gameplay and story! Developers may think new ways, and publishers may let them.
But no, it?s now all about new tech, who has the biggest this and that, and gimmicks. And we as gamers are never satisfied because we still search for something newer, more ?wow?.
As for PC costs, yes they are cheaper but average Joe still relies on a computer person for help. I can?t tell you how much I?ve asked for help with my PC over the years and how much I?ve had to pay for it, because the damn things are always having problems, even if I don?t do much gaming!
But we accept that from PCs, whereas the 360?s RROD was a surprise to all of us used to mostly reliable consoles.
NL:
Oh how the times have changed...
You hit the nail on the head, David: as long as Call of Duty can rack in 10+ million copies by a minimum of effort, it will continue to be done, and as other developers see this, they copy it and try to do the same thing.
The visual ceiling is here; but will companies truly try to make new IP, new experiences? As a budding indie dev, that?s my goal: focus on gameplay innovation, not graphical.
After all, they can make easy money churning out generic shooters; why waste money making something new?
And the same goes for consoles. As long as they continue to sell (and current gen is booming) they ?don?t see the need? for newer iterations.
DH:
A necessity?
Well that?s it! We don?t need new iterations! Not unless they truly have something to offer beyond pure ?power?.
You might as well just have a PC and plug it into your TV (which many do I believe).
I love all the comparisons we all make when a new console is announced based on specs. The specs are NOTHING if there aren?t any games.
There are plenty of consoles that looked good on paper and had some pretty good games but didn?t dominate because of their slow drip-fed releases.
With the notable exception of the Wii, the Nintendo 64, the Xbox, the Gamecube, and the PSP were all obviously graphically better and more powerful than their competition (Playstation, PS2, DS), and all had excellent exclusive titles, but didn?t sell as well. The competitions? constantly growing game library beyond first party and the fact they started first gave them success. It wasn?t the power of the new consoles that won. People didn?t suddenly jump on the newest more powerful console.
Let?s go to our recent topic of the 3DS having 4 months to prove itself, shall we? What went wrong here do you think? Because it was new and powerful and even had glasses-less 3D.
NL:
It went wrong because there were (are) no games, to put it simply. They?re coming, but Nintendo all in all released the console too early and at a bad time. If hardware cannot support itself in software, it?s useless.
But here?s where I counter that assassination you?re about to do to end this early: the fact that our consoles are dated is a sort of restrictive box, if you will, to a lot of creativity. A designer may have an idea for the next big game, but it?s not possible on consoles, and as such, cannot reach as wide an audience if it went PC exclusive, so that idea is straight out the door.
DH:
Will it suffer the fate of the 3DS?
Perhaps the fact that they don?t do it on PC is telling? Maybe specs aren?t everything?you need market too.
And market wants consoles. And market doesn?t want to keep upgrading all the time and spending more money on hardware.
I agree with you though about creativity. Though I?ve argued that ceilings can force creativity, they can also hinder real advancements.
But are specs all that they need? Maybe they need to picture their vision and see if they can create some new engine that can do it? I mean look at COD versus the destructibility of Battlefield or Red Faction (RIP).
They looked at things slightly differently, and instead of saying, like MOH, let?s make a clone, they instead said: let?s make something we know the market seems to want, but think a bit outside the linear path. Let?s see if we can take a clean environment and then let the player destroy it, instead of them coming in all the time in a post-apocalyptic wasteland of destruction.
All my talk of market, though, leads into another of your concerns: why doesn?t the market (game buyers) want to support new tech like 3DS? Lack of games is the main point we?ve touched on, huge cost to upgrade is another point I?ve made, but what else?
The DS brand is huge, and yet it appears to be on life-support (and have 4 months to live). Do we really want new tech after all?
Personally, I like seeing new stuff. But I got burned buying the Wii, PSP and PSP GO!
None of them fulfilled their potential in my opinion, and all were fairly expensive (especially here in Oz).
Now I waited to see how 3DS went and for the PS Vita I?ll do the same. I also waited on Apple?s iPod until it was clear it had lots to offer me. In other words: I won?t upgrade to new tech until it proves itself!
NL:
The 3DS , though, limits itself; what if 3D gives you a major headache, or you simply can?t see 3D?
Even though you can turn it off and still enjoy your games, that?s essentially defeating the purpose of the entire system, and most DEFINITELY deters more than a few purchases.
Nintendo made the right decision by being able to adjust and turn off the 3D, but it simply wasn?t enough for gamers.
But if you think about it, the ?real? games we?re talking about are more classic Nintendo rehash.
DH:
So are you saying then that new tech isn?t the answer? After all even the true gamers are going for the old games and nothing that uses the power of the new 3DS system.
Yet the DS changed to Lite, DSi and DSi XL and kept selling despite not getting any more powerful.
The 3D innovation sort of shows another point: the ?just because we can, doesn?t mean we should? adage. So what if we can make more powerful consoles with new features? Will that always work? Will everyone want it?
NL:
Why buy a system of rehashes, when more innovation lies on your phone?
New tech isn?t always the answer; the 3DS, for example, could be viewed as quite unnecessary.
With the growing field of mobile smartphone gaming, people are less and less inclined to buy an expensive handheld that may rehash old games, while their phone shows much more promise on the App store? and it?s part of their phone, not another piece of technology!
New hardware won?t always work; it depends on the market. In terms of consoles, we truly need an ANNOUNCEMENT at this point that new things are on the horizon.
That would push developers to squeeze the final juices out of current consoles before devoting full attention to the new generation, and I think that squeeze period will be what we remember of this generation.
So, to wrap it up: new consoles most certainly could change things, but the modern market wouldn?t support them in current 2011 ideals and routines.
DH:
You know, I could agree with that. A new console that had lots of support and titles ready for its release to show that it is viable and not just a flash in the pan, could attract me. But price and software would be more important to me than new tech, and that?s the problem. New tech is expensive and software almost non-existent.
I doubt I?d be an early adopter unless the early games showed something innovative AND a concept that could grow. Not just a Wiimote, or the ability to touch a back pad and do a really cool terrain changes in games that seem more like one-trick tech demos (even if kind of awesome for awhile).
In other words: new consoles shouldn?t just focus on announcing themselves with all the big specs to make tech geeks orgasm, but rather wait until they have some solid, real and fully fleshed out new experiences to display before announcing themselves. Look at the Wii U. I?m still confused by it. And not excited at all. And what about the Minority Report and Milo demonstrations for Kinect? Not real, at least not yet. Pre-mature announcements are not the go, and getting things right is better.
Until then, I?m happy with devs using current consoles to try to be more creative with what they have with game experiences.
To wrap up: I think the modern market could support something new, but we are more fiscally constrained and much more wary of hype and BS promises. Specs and gimmicks alone don?t keep interest long and upgrading consoles to do the same as PCs isn?t the answer.
As anyone with common sense would guess in such a scenario, the unstoppable force ricochets off of the immovable object, but not without damage being done to the latter.
David once again emerges victorious? but I assure you, my day will arrive, and soon.
The source of this discussion and its relation to Battlefield 3 in particular stems from here
Why does the 3DS only have 4 months to live? ?Is it that we don?t want new tech? ?read here.
How the 3DS is heading the way of the PSP GO! is analysed here.
And now we turn this debate over to you: should current generation consoles retire?
?2011 Nicholas Laborde and David Hilton
Filed under: Blogbanter, Console gaming, Editorial, Game Industry News, GameBanter, Gamer's Debate, Handhelds, Hardware News, Hardware Reviews, Industry News, Xbox 360 Tagged: | 360, 3d gaming, 3DS, 720, Battlefield 3, Console gaming, Console Platforms, Game, JavaScript, Kinect, Microsoft, nintendo, Personal computer, PlayStation Network, PS3, Sony, Video game, Video game console, Wii, Wii U, Xbox Live Arcade
Source: http://oxcgn.com/2011/08/01/should-current-gen-consoles-retire-oxcgn-debates/
dogma dogma full metal jacket wsop soccer games soccer games gia
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.