The Problem With Modern Day Consoles

[Silent_B0b]

I'm gonna quote from my friend.  He had a lot to say about gameplay which articulates my feelings very well.  His post was in response to the "Revolution", but I think most of it applies here too.

Here's the link to his post:  http://theboard.zogdog.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=11933&view=findpost&p=95891

"The controls of the Wii are NOT revolutionary by any means. All that technology was NOT creted by Nintendo, it was created by researchers in VR/AR. Nintendo simply grabbed the technology existent out there, made a cheaper, plastic version of it, put their logo on it, wrapped it and boxed it. Innovation will come from the game developers when trying to figure out new ways of using the wiimote. But the hardware in itself is not revolutionary. In other words, Sony's sin of copying the motion sensor stuff isn't much worse than Nintendo's.

Second, I've talked about this before. The controller does not define gameplay. NINTENDO WAS DISHONEST AND STRETCHED THE DEFINITION OF "GAMEPLAY" WHEN THEY ANNOUNCED THE CONTROLLER. Gameplay is not defined as "how you control the character in the game". It is a combination of the hardware you use plus the algorithms used in the controlling of the game. It also includes the physics of the world. Anybody who has played both Halo and Unreal Tournament will notice exactly that the "gameplay" is different, although the same hardware is being used.

Third, the next item in the list of arguments is "fun". Fun is largely determined by personal preference, heavily influenced by a concept in virtual reality called "presence", which means how much the player is immersed in the game. Many factors contribute to it, including graphics, physics, hardware, etc. The fact that you use a controller with a motion sensor or that you use the nunchucks as a steering wheel in Mario Kart does not determine this. Anybody wanna rebute this? Bring it on. I can bring some research academic papers on augmented reality showing experimentation, you probably won't be able to bring anything other than press releases and threads from the Nintendo forums.

Fourth, what people call the great "success" of Nintendo is just a hype. It had been caused 100% by the N-game, not by real shizzle from Nintendo. As I stated in a previous thread, I believe the rumors that magically filled the market (is Nintendo to blame for the rumors? I don't know) started feeding on each other, and that is how you get so many people excited about the Wii. It is my opinion that if similar rumors had started for the XBox 360 or the PS3 (an M-game? an S-game?), the SAME would have happened for them.

It is not a mystery that after Nintendo's announcements in E3, a lot of fans were silent for a couple of minutes, and went "...is that it?...". But instead of recognizing the dissapointment, they simply went on to praising Nintendo. I don't wanna sound like a jerk (I'm not flaming), but it was NOTICEABLE in the threads in this forum. If not, go review the threads with an open mind.

I'm not trying to destroy any illusions here. I don't mean to criticize Nintendo's new technology as much as their immoral marketing techniques and also the blind hype surrounding the issue. But the common misconception(caused by deceptive advertising) that Nintendo brings improved "innovative gameplay" or that graphics don't matter is, in fact, a step backwards for the gaming industry."

[Zn]

On a side note:

Holy shit I just played some Genesis (emulated, but my box can take a lot of shit).
The games weren't just "faster, better than on the NES". The thing's lightning, perfect 2D graphics with under 1% slowdown. No, I didn't play Sonic, I played Altered Beast, Castlevania Bloodlines, Contra Hardcorps and Ninja Gaiden. I mean, sure most console hardware is great for these kinds of games, the NES could handle these games but I can feel a significant difference. Seems like Stage-It wasn't talking about nothing all along.
I just played Hellfire and found out two things: 1) it's incredibly awesome, and 2) this is the game that they ripped off when they made Tyrian.

[Boone]

No, Tyrian was a verticle pc shoot-em-up, whereas HellFire was horizontal...weren't they

[Zn]

Yes, that is true but that's not what I was talking about.

I was talking about the style in which the enemies attack you, and the style of enemies generally, also you can make your guns fire in different directions with a key in both games, the powerups for different things (mainly weapons), the sequences in which you speed up around different bosses and the behavior of level bosses and the way they look and what they fire, the corny music that is awesome in both games, those turrets at the side of each level...a lot of things. So basically they made Hellfire vertical, put a shop in it with more guns / ships, gave it briefings and messages,  in Tyrian you get tough shields and armor etc. Of course, before Hellfire there were R-type and Guardian Legend, and both were tough shit.

[Stage-It]

On a side note:

Holy shit I just played some Genesis (emulated, but my box can take a lot of shit).
The games weren't just "faster, better than on the NES". The thing's lightning, perfect 2D graphics with under 1% slowdown. No, I didn't play Sonic, I played Altered Beast, Castlevania Bloodlines, Contra Hardcorps and Ninja Gaiden. I mean, sure most console hardware is great for these kinds of games, the NES could handle these games but I can feel a significant difference. Seems like Stage-It wasn't talking about nothing all along.
I just played Hellfire and found out two things: 1) it's incredibly awesome, and 2) this is the game that they ripped off when they made Tyrian.

Heehee.

Sega machines have ALWAYS had fast processors.

The Super Nintendo had a more graphics-centric design, a Nintendo rarity.

I generally prefer Genesis versions of games if they are for both platforms.  They run smoother with less slowdown.

I'm willing to take the graphical hit if the game plays better.

[Kado]

Now, fast forward to the NES.  For the first time in human history, players got arcade quality graphics.

A lot of people forget (or were too young to remember) that for many, many years arcades were the only place to go if you wanted to play something new and see something new. The technology and variety of games blew away anything that consoles could do at the time.

Yeah.  I go to arcades a lot these days and it's kinda ...weird?  sad?... seeing nothing really new-- plastic motorcycle controls maybe-- and then the graphics aren't even as good as console games. (Cruisn' Exotica, anyone? >_>)

Or maybe it's just my local arcades.

When I go to arcades it's for Robotron 2084 or DDR. >_>

[Phoenixan]

Even though the Wii doesn't use a "revolutionary" concept, it's still different, and I admire them for that much. ^^

PC gamers have been getting the better graphics before everyone else though, which makes consoles no more special than the PC other than having a handfull of exclusive games.  All PC gamers had to worry about was just updating the hardware, and you could do that every year or two years, then consoles are just... uninteresting with the point of "better graphics than before."

Really, I've never owned a console myself (though I do have cartridges people have given me just so it'd be legal to download roms. O_o; ), but I have owned 4 PC's.  Really, just seeing the "spectacular graphics" of the newest games makes you yawn after having it already in some form or another.

[Bank]

Heehee.

Sega machines have ALWAYS had fast processors.

The Super Nintendo had a more graphics-centric design, a Nintendo rarity.

I generally prefer Genesis versions of games if they are for both platforms.  They run smoother with less slowdown.

I'm willing to take the graphical hit if the game plays better.

I'm praying that Sega goes back on their word and makes another console. Sega Messiah anyone?

[Stage-It]

Ain't gonna happen.  Ever.  Trust me.

[Heroinzeleid]

Good.

[Stage-It]

Agreed, Heroin.  They are low enough already, I would hate to see them go lower.

[Heroinzeleid]

I don't fanboy for any company, I'll just support which product looks the best. The only one of the next-gen consoles I've played is XBox 1.5, err, XBox 360 and it was decent. Revolution looks the most promising to me, but only if they really focus on the nunchuks and don't make it a stupid gimmick like the DS splitscreen. PS3 I'm gonna play if a friend buys one. I wouldn't fork out that money for any videogame.