The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
are next-gen consoles really next-gen?
motorfirebox
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
what do next-gen consoles like the XBox360 and the PS3 really offer, in terms of advances over their predecessors? i mean, when the PS1 came out, it was a revolution. it made 3d games mainstream, relegating 2d games to a niche. the PS2, Dreamcast, the XBox--these consoles re-revolutionized graphics. i remember when i first got Metal Gear Solid 2, i spent five minutes just running around on the front of the boat, marvelling at the fluid movement and the rain and the zomgz (hey, i'm easily amused).
the PS3, and the XBox360? not so much (i'm excluding the Wii from this because the Wii doesn't claim to have huge graphics improvements). i mean, don't get me wrong--Bulletwitch is beautiful, Lair is beautiful. but not significantly more beautiful than, oh, Ninja Gaiden. they're smoother, they're a bit more detailed, but nothing i've seen so far has been a truly jaw-dropping advance over the previous "next gen".
now, let me add the caveat that i'm not a hardcore gamer. i have an XBox, i have a PS2, and i play them both frequently... but i don't run out and get the newest games the moment they come out. i'm willing to wait until they hit the $19.99 bin, usually. for a hardcore gamer, the graphical improvements offered by the PS3 and the XBox360 might be a real draw. but it doesn't seem like the rest of us chumps are getting much out of the newer consoles.
the PS3, and the XBox360? not so much (i'm excluding the Wii from this because the Wii doesn't claim to have huge graphics improvements). i mean, don't get me wrong--Bulletwitch is beautiful, Lair is beautiful. but not significantly more beautiful than, oh, Ninja Gaiden. they're smoother, they're a bit more detailed, but nothing i've seen so far has been a truly jaw-dropping advance over the previous "next gen".
now, let me add the caveat that i'm not a hardcore gamer. i have an XBox, i have a PS2, and i play them both frequently... but i don't run out and get the newest games the moment they come out. i'm willing to wait until they hit the $19.99 bin, usually. for a hardcore gamer, the graphical improvements offered by the PS3 and the XBox360 might be a real draw. but it doesn't seem like the rest of us chumps are getting much out of the newer consoles.
motorfirebox on
0
Posts
Anyone using 'next-gen' as a phrase to try and sell their latest game, is just resorting to shameless marketing hyperbole. "It's the only true next-gen experience", if taken literally, really just means "it's the only experience you can get on the new console". No.
Am i tired? Yes.
I will also say that 360 and PS3 aren't just 'newer shinier graphics'. Hell, if you want to claim that that's all a faster computer provides, then you're sorely mistaken. Having better processing power and more RAM to work with, gives developers a whole lot more scope for better interactivity within their games.
The issue is that, like the change from Atari- nes or nes-supernes... it's more of an evolution in terms of advances. The jump from 2d to full 3d was not a sudden "OMG 3D" jump. The early 3d games prior to the Saturn and PSX stunk, and the early 3d Games on those systems weren't great either... but they got better.
Even so, there was the capability for some awesome 3d games now, where previously it took a lot of work or fancy tricks to pull off.
PSX- Dreamcast and beyond was not as large of a leap, but it did open up higher quality graphics for SD and even breaking into HD.
What you will see now is the evolution of what you see. Sure, what you see may not be as massive an improvement over something like Ninja Gaiden as NG was to say, the first Tomb Raider, but you will see it look crisper, cleaner, and more detailed.
The view distances will get further, environments will open up and get more detailed, and more will be happening on screen.
All of this is not a huge revolution, it's just evolving to better and better looking (and sounding) capabilities.
The wii is simple this done in a control scheme instead of visuals. And all have taken connectivity and online presence into play.
We will see a new "revolution" in visuals/gaming when there is a new way to see or interact. VR for instance, or something similar, will probably be the next big leap, but probably not for at least another 2-3+ generations of systems.
Though, of course, they're no longer really "Next-gen", they're "Current Gen" now. Still though, if you're referring to the last generation as the "current generation" then this iteration would be the "next generation".
...what?
really, no, just no.
Specifically for the xbox 360 you now have custom soundtracks in EVERY game as well as a buddy list that is always accessible, along with voice chat in every game and video chat in select titles. Also the market place and and xbox live arcade(in it's current iteration) are things that weren't available if not possible on the last gen system. I think it's things like these that really push the systems in the direction of "next gen" making our gaming lives easier and more connected. Oh and most of the games look fucking amazing, especially on a HD TV which is what they were really built for.
Even something like Mario Galaxy has amazing lighting. But then looking at something like Bioshock, Halo 3, or MGS4 and it's an even bigger leap. Just don't look at the games that think bloom lighting still = OMGAWESOMEGRAPHIX!
Really, I had my 360 for 8 months with no HD display of any kind and I could definitely tell the difference.
If you can't tell the difference between a 360 or PS3 game and an Xbox game on an SDTV, there's something very wrong with you or your TV.
I stand by it. Put lair on an SD set, then put any of the best looking Xbox/PS2/GC games on the same SD set. It will look better, but nowhere near as big a difference as if you put them both on a good HD screen. To a casual observer, the differences between the two in terms of visual quality in SD simply would not look that great without taking a hard look at them.
I think too many people took Sony seriously when they said that the next generation doesn't start until they say so. I haven't seen a press release saying it's started yet. Maybe in a couple of years.
No, it's happened every generation I've seen as far back as the Genesis (that I remember). People just want to make it sound like their system is the newest and the best... it generally starts dying off after a couple years or when the next set of systems are announced, whichever comes first.
you idiot, that's all next gen EVER is
The thing is though, both consoles praise these new processors like they're the dawn of a new age, and being an IT tech, it's confusing, because the Core2duo is simply amazing, but only when the programs are written to work for it. I get core 2, I get quad, and I get the THEORY behind cell (even though I haven't seen the money shot that sony is promising) but I don't get the 360 triple processor thing. It just seems like it's basically a 64 bit P4 pretending to be something it isn't. I own a 360, and I love it, but for something that is supposed to have independent graphics and 3 processors, there is a lot of loading and even some frameskip from time to time.
I do agree that it's next gen in terms of legality (it's the newest, so it's next gen), but it's still not ACTUALLY better than any high end computer on the market, just a cheaper and better alternative.
just my .02
then honestly, Lair must look like crap (although i know it doesn't). Really, put PGR3 or Gears of War, or Bioshock alongside the absolute pinnacle of what you can do on an Xbox, PS2 or Gamecube. Anyone who can't tell a marked difference needs a hasty trip to the opticians.
edit: and i would ask, to all the people saying "next gen is just last gen 1.5", what the hell were you looking for from the newest iteration of consoles? Man, they still just play games. What's the deal with that? Can't we implant the games into our minds now? I want the memories of playing the best games ever implanted into my mind, because i don't have time to actually play them. GOSH, so archaic.
That's pretty much all it is.
As long as it's released after the "current gen" systems exist.. it really doesn't matter what features it has. Look at the Wii, one would argue it's much like a Gamecube with online features and a unique control system. Everything in it could have been done last gen fairly easily (but perhaps not as cheaply), yet it's firmly placed in this gen.
"Next Gen" is simply a marketing ploy to say you have something new coming out. They could easily have called them the late 2k models and it would mean the exact same thing... which is absolutely nothing.
The only thing expected of "next gen" is to be better than the previous gen, and "better" can be rather subjective.
Yes, better graphics are a part of that, but it's not all in one direction. Crackdown, to me, looks awesome. So does Gears of War. But oh MY do they look different to each other, and play remarkably different too.
Playing Gears in 720p and then going back and playing say, Soul Calibur 2, in 720p makes me feel like I've put on someone else's glasses. And Soul Calibur 2 was a great looking game last gen.
Exactly.
I'm not saying the 360/ps3 (or even wii) games will continue at their current level of visual appeal. But for the moment, we are still very early on in the consoles lifespans. Every console that's come out has seen a greater visual improvement from the early release games to the end of life games than the hop to the next gen systems early release games(provided the console lasted the full gen that is). There are occasional outliers (like the Dream Cast Soul Caliber), but by and large the "next gen" systems don't really start stretching their legs till at least a year in, many times it takes a bit longer than that.
Having HDTV and better online capability this time is cool.
The improvement in graphics is more subtle now than just pushing more polygons. Things like lighting and particles make the game look more real and so immersive.
The big change will be when developers use the horsepower to up the AI, there is massive room to improve games this way.
This next-gen feature would have to be wireless controllers. And live-concepts. It was done on the xbox, but this gen has 360's arcade and achievements, Wii's VC and channels, and PS3's home, PSP extended, and whatever.
I'm too lazy to put my definition of next-gen to previous versions.
fair enough, then. I'm still staggered at what Xbox devs could do with 16mb of RAM. Personally though, i think that games on the 360 (which is my main experience) do look stunning, and miles better than anything from the previous set. I also look forward with relish to see how far devs can push these towards the end of their stint.
Consoles of this generation are vastly more online friendly, have internal storage space for save games, patches, downloadable content and demos etc.
Leaderboards, Friends lists, Instant messaging.
Streaming music and video
2/3 of current gen consoles can display HD resolutions.
More processing power = more polygons, better shading and lighting, anti aliasing etc.
Better game physics.
Improved controller.
Wireless controllers pretty much come standard now.
All of this extra functionality has been around on PC for a while now so some PC gamers may not see this gen as being all that revolutionary.
The new generation is defined by online play. Though it was present before to a greater or lesser extent on prior platforms, this is the first generation where online capabilities are present across a large number of titles on all current consoles.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Wrong. The Wii is market leader, and has the worst online infrastructure out of all 3 consoles. Pretty much on par with the Dreamcast.
The current generation is, from what I can see, about market segmentation and accessibility.
That's like arguing that the PS1/Saturn/N64 generation wasn't defined by 3D graphics because the Saturn had crappy 3D.
You mean the Dreamcast had a built-in wi-fi connection, grabbed news and weather reports online when you turned it on, and had native capability for direct download of software titles from an online store?
Shit, my Dreamcast wasn't that cool. Maybe I bought the gimptarded one by accident.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
only if you read half of what Lewie said. Market leader having worst online implies that online isn't something that the majority of people look for when buying a console.
I agree with this guy. If you saw a graph of graphical advances between consoles, I'm sure the advance would get smaller over time, as we get closer and closer to "Photo realistic".
You realise that Moore's law isn't a law of nature, right? It has to be implemented by people. You can't just say that Moore's law will keep the advances between consoles constant, because if the console manufacturer doesn't want to follow Moore's law, they don't have to.
Edit: The Wii's online capabilities are pretty bad but still serviceable except for the friend codes.
Naw, I read what he said about it being market leader. I just didn't see it as relevant.
For the first time (pretty much ever) all of the current generation consoles and even the leading handheld have native support for online gaming. That the leading console has poor online support (though still better than most of the prior generation's consoles) in comparison to the other current generation competitors doesn't change the fact that online defines this generation in a way that it did not define prior generations.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
My point was - More people, by a large amount, are picking the console with the worst online infrastructure, the majority of demand is for the console with software that is accessible to gamers and non-gamers alike, and minimal online infrastructure.
Take that new Star Wars game for example. It doesn't look all that, when static - if you dropped the detail a little you could do it on the Xbox. However, when you look at how everything moves and reacts to everything else - yeah, my PS2 never did that shit.
So, yeah. Its next-gen. Its just taking developers a while to notice.
I agree with an earlier poster's assertion that in order to see any significant difference between this gen and the last you do need a better audio/video setup. Even with your big screen TV and the sound run through your stereo, if the TV is not capable of displaying 720p or 1080i/p, you're really not getting the video power that the system is designed to display. Even with an HD projection screen, it's not quite ideal. Plasmas and LCD monitors are where these systems truly shine. Couple that with surround sound and a decent digital mixer/audio system and you finally get where these machines are coming from.
So for a casual gamer, are these systems really next-gen? Sure they are. Are they worth upgrading your entire living room to take advantage of them? That's up to you. But that's what it takes to prove that really are next-gen. So I guess the real question is do you mind playing Mass Effect, Halo 3, or Heavenly Sword on your old flat screen, SDTV using the TV's speakers?
Does it look as good as it would on an HDTV? No, of course not, it's a fucking SDTV. But the differences are very, very noticeable. You miss out on some minute details in the textures sometimes (I really didn't know that you could actually see the stitching in the armor in Rainbow Six: Vegas until I played it on an HD display), but if you really cannot see a significant difference, you really need to get your TV fixed or take a trip to an optometrist.
Seriously, have you people actually looked at these consoles being played on an SDTV?