This post was originally going to be put up on Monday, but I held off due to the uncertainty regarding the site as a whole. As for why there was no post this past Friday, there is a good reason for that. As some of you know, I recently suffered a loss in my family, and I wanted to thank those of you who have offered words of comfort to me. It was a close relative, and I'm ok, but obviously, family comes first in these things.
Is it just me, or is the entirety of gaming's future based on a gigantic contradiction? We all know exactly what we want from the future of games; Something that is totally new and different from anything we've ever seen while simultaneously being the exact same thing we've been playing for years. Wait, no, we want something with totally realistic graphics that are totally stylized into a fantasy world setting. How about having a game that contains an epic involving quest that also happens to be perfect for casual play? You see the problem. Aside from the fact that I can't come up with a good definition of a contradiction, there is a sharp contrast between what people say they want and what people actually want. We all make fun of EA for repacking sports titles and generic looking FPS games year after year with moderate updates like rosters, but then we go out and buy those same titles when we're bored and need something to entertain us. Even the seeming giants of innovation, Nintendo, who shook up the industry with their radical controller design, have done what with their flagship titles; give them totally new revolutionary makeovers? Nope, released the same old stuff with a bit of a new "innovative" twist. Samus aims with a pointer, you swing to make Link swing and Mario can spin because you flick your wrist. So much for the 'revolution' we were all promised. If that doesn't express some kind of an issue, I don't know what does.
Part of the problem is that no one quite knows what to expect anymore. A generation ago, we had 1 console with a centralized online infrastructure, one with a decentralized one, and one without any online. Controller design was pretty much a set standard, as was memory cards and how they were used. Now we have 3 central online structures, pricing tiers, causal games, hardcore games, channels, features, DLC, hard drives...and why the hell do we need to know what the difference between an "achievement" and an "accomplishment" is? The fact of the matter is, the video gaming world has had radical changes thrust upon it not just by the obvious party (Nintendo) but by ALL parties. Nintendo of course showed us what could be done with unconventional controller design. Microsoft showed what a strong online interface and lots of money for royalties can buy for your fanbase. Sony showed us how to lose all of your exclusive franchises and give your fanbase the idea that you have no long term planning when it comes to hardware design....err....Sony showed us how to...incorporate new ideas we've seen from others into a conventional form? Oh, and Data Digital showed us what happens when you combine Ninjas and Gingerbread Men; only the idea is a LOT less cool in execution than it sounds. I know, I was surprised too.
So what does this all mean? Well, to be perfectly frank, at times I feel like the greatest name in gaming over the past 20+ years has abandoned me. When I hear more about Wii Fit at a press conference than I do about games that will actually require some skill to play, that kind of upsets me. Don't get me wrong, I love some of these casual titles as much as the next person, and I'm damn glad to see Nintendo back on top, I just wish it didn't have to come at the cost of me. And the truth is, its really stupid on their part. Who is going to be watching GDC keynotes, the hardcore or the casual gamers? Of course its the hardcore, and yet they choose to focus on the casuals. We know they have titles like Disaster: Day of Crisis in the pipeline, as well as a few revival franchises, why not focus on the casual announcement in a more appropriate forum for them?
Sony is doing better than they were, but I still think they have some strides to make. As of now, their big title for 2008 (no disrespect to Gran Turismo) is MGS4. And NO title, not even Mario, could carry an entire system for a year by itself. Sony needs to step up and hit us with a BIG holiday release. Is it LittleBigPlanet? Home? Sony definitely just got a big boost from HD-DVD's death, so I think they need to capitalize on that as much as possible. Push some media, sink some money. And whatever they do, decide if Backwards Compatibility is important or not, and stick to that plan. No more SKUs.
Microsoft...well, they're kind of doing everything right, but not doing anything spectacularly. They're the middle candidate here. They have the strong online interface, but thats countered by them being the only ones to charge for it. They offer lots of content, but we don't use all of it. They have casual games, hardcore games, exclusives, a reasonable approach to backwards compatibility (considering full BC is impossible from a technical standpoint) and enough staying power to keep them in the race for a while. But at the same time, they aren't really the innovators. Microsoft is taking its previous successes in other areas and building on them, not forging new territory so much. I think they should try something totally radical. Not just radical for gaming, but radical in general. Even if it flops horribly, at least they tried.
So, now that we've established just how different things are now, the real question is; what's next? To be honest, I haven't a clue. But, I'll make a few predictions that I think are safe ones. I think Microsoft, Nintendo and Sony will all continue to milk their big franchises into the next generation. I think there is a very good chance that the next set of consoles will all run on Blu-ray, provided something more advanced isn't out yet. I think one way or another, we will have a decision on whether or not we will be charged for the future of online multiplayer gaming. DLC will continue to get popular, and its possible, though highly unlikely, that certain games like sports titles will be updated via patches, not new yearly editions. And I think before long, we will see a PSPhone, Xboy or some kind of new radical hardware from Nintendo. And while we're on the subject of predictions, I think Duke Nukem Forever will come out and very much NOT live up to its hype, and that Obama will be the next President of the US. So, game on?
|
|
Replies: 5 Comments
|
By CloudANDTidus on Thursday, February 21st:
|
|
I think Sony has showed us with the PlayStation 3 that a more open online platform accessible to mods and less closed to developers (the idea that ANY USB camera will work with burnout for example) does work, but it just needs a Microsoft level of management.
No matter how much Microsoft spins choice, Xbox LIVE is extremely closed.
I think what you can expect from the future is more of the same from big franchises, however this isn't always bad. It's this "safe" money that allows them to get the money to work on the more wacky projects.
The game industry is very contradicting of its self, however unless we go for that all "perfect" one console future, it's always going to be.
More players in the industry mean more points of view, which leads to contradicting arguments of what we actually want.
And that's what makes this industry great.
|
|
By Biccy on Friday, February 22nd:
|
|
All of the previous generation consoles had online capability. Admittedly not brilliant, but it was still capable.
If you're talking about the Gamecube without any online, well sorry but I played Phantasy Star Online with my GC.
And the PS2 I'm not so sure about, all I can remember about that is the massive empty part in the back, if filled, allowing for online.
I think that while online gaming is the "big thing" it'll still be charged for. Not sure for how long...basically for as long as they can get away with it.
And I'm hoping that's not too long >.>
|
|
By CloudANDTidus on Friday, February 22nd:
|
|
That's a very good point Biccy, GameCube did have online if you brought the broadband adaptor, however as hardly any games supported it you can't blame him for missing it off the list.
Hell, Dreamcast is the origin of good home console online.
As for the PS2, yeah it had online, but support, availability of the adaptor, and a lack of players using it basically made it worthless.
In regards to online fees, what really drives me mad is not that we have to pay for online, but that we have to pay for online AND receive adverts. If you want contradiction in this industry, there's a biggie.
|
|
By tetsuotrunks on Friday, February 22nd:
|
|
I did mean the Gamecube, as between the need to buy the broadband adaptor and the near total lack of games (Mario Kart and Phantasy Star as the exceptions), Nintendo did not really have an online presence.
As far as being charged, this is why I was really hoping Sony or Nintendo would massively step up their online structure. And while its good enough to compete with Xbox Live, they need something to dethrone it in order to get online gaming back down to 'free' and quite frankly, I'm not sure they have.
|
|
By CloudANDTidus on Friday, February 22nd:
|
|
Now owning X-box LIVE, I can tell you Sony and Nintendo have some neat ideas here and there that are better, however as a general rule of thumb, they have A LOT of work to do.
|
|
