A generation of irrelevance

[Roderick]

http://www.captainaugust.com/

The next generation of consoles will be the most irrelevant yet. Discuss.

[miffy495]

Hear hear! I've expressed similar emotions many times to the XBox fanboy friend that I have. They keep on telling me how the 360 is going to revolutionize gameplay (hey, if Time magazine says it, it MUST be true!). To this I respond: "No. It will be the same thing, only prettier. There's nothing wrong with that, but it isn't a goddamned revolution." I can't wait to see what Nintendo's got up their sleeve this time, but it better not dissappoint. The only failure I can remember is the Virtual Boy, and even then, I still go back and play my copy of Mario's Tennis (came bundled with the system, only game I could ever find for it...) now and then. Despite my love for gaming, I haven't been able to bring myself to care about the latest generation yet. All the 360 has going for it seem to be ports of PC games that'll STILL look better on a good computer, and the PS3 just seems to be continuing more series I care nothing about. Good rant, man. I tottally, yet heavy-heartedly agree.

[vimes]

What is really strange about the new generations of consoles is that :

- it seemed really rushed to me : we first began to expect Playstation 3 and Xbox 2 since March of this year and official announcements came in May . Apparently, for these two consoles, a final and stable Development Kit has only been dispatched quite recently... and their final shipment, as well as their firsts games, are due to the end of the year!

- nobody seems to be really excited about it : if you count out Epic which demoed their engine in realtime at last E3, I'm still waiting for the demos of titles that will only be released in next gen console. What I mean is that there wasn't this big boom of announcement that everybody witnessed for the GC or PS2 announcement. More supriising is that Microsoft, Sony and Nintendo didn't come with a "fer de lance" title, a title that would represent their upcoming console... for the XBox it was Malice and for the GC it was Mario Sunshine but there is no such title for the next-gen...it is quite disturbing.

So, I think that the next-gen is a big example of a consumption society where mass products feature built-in obsolescence : I don't think that developers exploited the current generation of console to their limits - and the recent God of War is a proof -... but the gaming industry is an ever growing monster which craves for its frequent fix of buy frenziness; and the next gen has been designed for that.

The upside of this situation is what Rodi highlighted : the current gen is gonna be far more affordable and I might get one thoes Xbox, PS2 or gameCube thingy in a not-so-distant future.

PS : on a related note, is it possible to wire those consoles to a CRT monitor ?

[Mr Flibble]

Th next generation has been artificially induced in order to make more money.

Which is a pity, because despite the fact that theres a few years left in the current set of consoles, developers have started to really get to grips with the technology, but before the consoles are really pushed to the limit, we get a new set.

I'm interested to see what Ninty comes up with. I think they've hyped up this controller too much, but its quite possible they could come up with something exceptional, a cut above the mere graphical and processor enhancements of the 360 and PS3.

[steak-flavored gum]

I think the thing that has the potential to bring relevance to this generation of consoles lies in the tools that are given to the developers from Nintendo, Microsoft, or Sony. Now that the curve has leveled off substantially on how impressed we generally are with new advances in graphics prettiness, the battleground lies where more creativity and (traditionally) technical aptitude is required.

As an example: how many games actually provide to you as vivid a soundscape in surround sound as you actually experience in real life? The increased power of this next generation makes it possible to come closer to this sort of soundscape, but I can never imagine it being made a priority by a developer without being given some sort of advanced toolkit that takes a vast amount of the grunt work out using all sorts of clever automation stuff. This would free the developer to focus on making the sound a really interesting and substantial part of the game, given the time and ability to do a wider range of things.

Or how about some sort of weird physics toolkit that allows the developer to be ultra-creative and make a set of natural laws that seem impossibly bizarre? Or maybe something that allows an artist with limited technical skill to modify the way three dimensions are treated in a room so that the dimensions become warped and the room folds in on itself?

So for sure, from that last paragraph you're thinking "well, this seems marginally interesting but it has very limited appeal and nobody would ever buy something like this." Here's me telling you you're wrong. If more of the power is put into the hands of the highly creative people that are or could be potentially working in the industry, if it is made easier for them to immediately affect significant change within a game, then all sorts of doors are opened up for the truly creative aspects in games to be much more involved.

It's like the whole thing in digital audio stuff right now: as a result of there being powerful and easy-to-use tools available, anyone can make music electronically if they really wanted to. While this has led to an impossibly huge deluge of crappy electronic music available both online and off, it now frees the more brilliant musicians to do some amazing work that could not have been done even with a ton of techincal knowledge and hard work a few decades ago. Sure, the tools have the potential to shape the work almost as much as the person using them, simply because of how the tools are meant to be used, but within the hands of an innovative thinker, this problem is itself made irrelevant by its questionable existence.

Aside from all this unreadable bullshit, I do agree with points made thus far and it seems that, without such tools as I describe AND without developer interest in making games uniquely awesome as I have mentioned, the next generation consoles seem as if they really don't bring enough to the table.

[Jake]

I don't think this next generation is going to be revolutionary from a game design standpoint (aside from the stifling development costs of huge budget titles yadda yadda), but from a cultural standpoint I think what happens this time around will be very important, or at least kind of interesting. Not irrelevant. I mean with this current generation of consoles things hit in the mainstream pretty hard, but aren't upcoming systems the ones that will allegedly genuinely do that - basically "one in every living room in the country" or whatever? "Everyone plays games." That's kind of huge and hardly irrelevant.

I mean it seems like the 360 is 100% built to be "the game console for the mainstream," which is a different attitude than we saw last cycle where there were hints of "mainstream culture" things in the consoles like DVD playback and ripping CD audio, but they were just bonus frills on what was otherwise a generation of consoles still built for existing gamers or people who wanted to get into being a gamer. That's really not going on this time. It's not a complete rehash at all from that point of view. That might not be as much the case with the PS3 and Revolution, (or at least they won't be going about it in the same way as Microsoft...) but who knows really? And the 360 is sort of leading the charge in this generation of consoles.

Anyway, I think "irrelevant" is a bit of a ridiculous blanket statement. People like to be brash around here and frown on anything post SNES/Genesis though, which I find pretty hilarious... but anyway, carry on. Games!

[steak-flavored gum]

...but from a cultural standpoint I think what happens this time around will be very important, or at least kind of interesting. Not irrelevant. I mean with this current generation of consoles things hit in the mainstream pretty hard, but aren't upcoming systems the ones that will allegedly genuinely do that - basically "one in every living room in the country" or whatever? "Everyone plays games." That's kind of huge and hardly irrellevent.

Is this really going to happen, though? I don't see the demographic for the people that buy consoles as something that is about to be dramatically changed. Prices are rising significantly. It's possible that this time the marketing propaganda will turn out to be true, but I highly doubt it.

As an afterthought: I see culture (in general) influencing the next generation of consoles and their games much more than the consoles and the games will influence culture. This is more what I mean by cultural irrelevance.

[Jake]

As an afterthought: I see culture (in general) influencing the next generation of consoles and their games much more than the consoles and the games will influence culture. This is more what I mean by cultural irrelevance.

That's possibly true (though it still is a two way street, you're right that it could be very lopsided in one direction), but even then with what you're saying this generation of gaming is going to be relevant at least within the history of gaming (or game console generations) itself.

[steak-flavored gum]

That's possibly true (though it still is a two way street, you're right that it could be very lopsided in one direction), but even then with what you're saying this generation of gaming is going to be relevant at least within the history of gaming (or game console generations) itself.

Yes, I agree with that - it is impossible for the next generation to be irrelevant under these terms, even if it's just going to be another few years of gestation. You just have to insert the eggsack right on the inside-rear of the thigh and be sure to inconspicuously let the fluid discharge whenever you're near and then you'll be gold!

[Jake]

I don't think I explained what I meant to say well enough in my first post. What I meant is that though from some points of view not a lot is happening with this generation, whether or not games as a "thing" alter the culture or not, that is very much the aim of console manufacturers this time around - the approach they are taking to building, marketing, and designing games for this generation of systems is different than previous ones. I think MS genuinely expects people to buy music over their Live connection, to pay to add new rims to their car in Midnight Club, to buy multiple faceplates for their system, to treat it like any other piece of consumer electronics even when their girlfriend is around (or possibly especially when she's around?). Whether that is an effect of popular culture directly affecting the games industry like you say or not doesn't necesarilly matter. Peoples goals are different this time around... maybe nothing different will happen, but at least right now console makers don't seem to want more of the same when it comes to who buys games and who does what with their systems.

When Rodi says "this generation is irrelevant" he really means "this generation isn't going to go further in the direction I want to see - which is basically a bunch of artists running naked in the field in springtime, with games somehow resulting." It's just a very "me-centric" view of irrelevance.

I don't mean to imply that the direction for instance MS is taking with the 360 is one that I want to see either, its just that... stuff is happening. I mean come on. This thread is titled "A generation of irrelevance." Give me a break.

[Jake]

Also yes, and what of the graphics plateau that people are whining about. I mean, if that's really the case, isn't that a good thing? Hardware updates are going to be an inevitable factor in keeping up with technology at least for the next like 50 years, I think, so moaning and hand-wringing about that aspect of it will get you nowhere.

But I mean, in some ways, I'm sort of glad that this next generation of consoles might basically be the same thing in terms of the visual and atmospheric experiences the hardware is capable of producing. I mean, I dunno. There have been a lot of shitty games and a lot of bullshit marketing and licensed crap this generation but that's inevitable - those have always been there. The thing is, compared to the N64/PS1 generation there were a LOT of really great, fun, well designed games in this last generation, and as has been said a billion times, it's probably because while there was a graphical leap from the PS1 to the PS2, it still wasn't anywhere near as enormous as from the SNES/Genesis to the PS1 - there was a bit of a graphics plateau.

You couldn't get away with just saying "Whoa it's in three-dee this time!" with the current generation of consoles because, well, everyone had seen 3D before. Instead, you had two choices: you could either say "Yeah, but mine's got Batman in it this time!" or you could say "Yeah, but this time mine's actually really fun to play!!" I am expecting more development down those two paths more than anything else this time (coupled with more of the mainstream blathering from earlier in this thread, and the possibility of the "It's got Batman in" path forking into "It's got Batman AND it's fun" and "It's got Batman AND, well, it says Batman on the box.")

Anyway there are some more undeveloped ramblings you can feel free to rip up if you care enough

[Roderick]

When Rodi says "this generation is irrelevant" he really means "this generation isn't going to go further in the direction I want to see - which is basically a bunch of artists running naked in the field in springtime, with games somehow resulting." It's just a very "me-centric" view of irrelevance.

I don't think my writing had anything to do with how games are made. I personally wouldn't know if what Steakflavoured gum said held any truth, maybe the next generation will have greatly improved development kits that make making creative games easier, but that's really not what I was pointing at. The 'irrelevant' banner is obviously a ploy to get the fires going, but it's really from a 'game' point of view. Like I said, the games inherently won't be any different if all that's changing is an improvement in graphics. Note that I didn't call this either a good or a bad thing, I just implied the games would not really change. Change could always be a good thing, but as you said, Jake, this generation has held some of the best made games ever. I'm certainly not complaining if this would continue.

As for the Naked Running Artists, I think the industry is already quite balanced as it is. You've got people with naught but a vision throwing everything at their baby on one side without really knowing if what they're doing will work, and on the other extreme you've already got the teams churning out aptly made games following a strict code. I think both sides and everything in between have made games that I liked at one point, so I wouldn't advocate any one as better than the rest.

[vimes]

Like I said, the games inherently won't be any different if all that's changing is an improvement in graphics. Note that I didn't call this either a good or a bad thing, I just implied the games would not really change.

Yeah.. but it's difficult to foresee something that you're not expecting cause it would be ... new. "You can't second-guess ineffability" as they say.

[Roderick]

Well, 'new' stuff can and will inevitably come from designers. But it won't be anything that couldn't have already been done on the current generation.

It'll look prettier though.

[jokemaster]

It is definately the most irrelevant jump of the recent generation jumps.

I mean if you look at a NES game and then at a SNES game, you can clearly tell the difference, even though they're both 2D, then SNES-N64 was the jump to 3D, then N64-Current Gen you can clearly tell the difference. But honestly, THIS generation jump, most of the games I've seen so far look like they're from this gen, but highly polished.

So basically we went from blocks to sprites, to 3D, to shiny 3D, and now they're basically just making it shinier. It's a very small jump in comparision

[Mr Flibble]

Amen to that.

However, an important note.

A lot of current gen games are amazingly polished with outstanding graphics, but an even greater number have dull and lackluster graphics.

From this I predict that whilst the tech demos look shiny and delicious, we're going to end up with really quite mediocre graphics on a lot of games.

I think in some places, the difference between this gen and the next one will be minute. If you need an example, the only one that comes to mind is Bionicle.

Current gen title, looks and plays like a N64 game.

We'll be seeing a lot of this (figuratively speaking of course. What we'll see is a lot of PS2 level graphics. The bad kind. The movie license kind.)

[Lechimp]

So basically we went from blocks to sprites, to 3D, to shiny 3D, and now they're basically just making it shinier. It's a very small jump in comparision

But wouldn't this be a good thing? Instead of focusing on developing cutting edge graphics, won't developers now focus on better gameplay in games instead of how shiny something is (I kinda doubt it)?

[n0wak]

But wouldn't this be a good thing? Instead of focusing on developing cutting edge graphics, won't developers now focus on better gameplay in games instead of how shiny something is (I kinda doubt it)?

ahahahahahahaha (not "kinda" enough).

[miffy495]

No, no they won't. Unfortunately, at the moment the mainstream gamer is still the frat boy, playing Halo while drunk. The game itself really doesn't matter right now, but saying "Look! It's slightly shinier!" will move product. I expect this to be milked for as long as possible, probably at LEAST halfway through the next generation before most people start to catch on.

[Spaff]

[jokemaster]

But wouldn't this be a good thing? Instead of focusing on developing cutting edge graphics, won't developers now focus on better gameplay in games instead of how shiny something is (I kinda doubt it)?

It would be, except that publsihers still believe that squeezing every bit of graphical power out of a console moves more units than squeezing every bit of originality into the game.

[Aussie Ben]

As I said to a friend of mine, I can't wait when video games leave their "photorealism" stage and enter the "abstract" stage that art did.

[Roderick]

Don't worry, this will happen as soon as we actually reach photorealism and there's no way to top it anymore. Innovation will have to be sought in other ways. Painting didn't stop trying to achieve realism until the photocamera came and made the whole quest pointless.

Of course, these next years will become horrible for us, as we're right in the middle of reaching the lowest point in the uncanny valley. Creepy deathmasks of realism ahoy!

[jokemaster]

I'm reading an interview w/ Kojima and he says this:

[...]And with the next gen coming up, I think that most of the creators are thinking, oh, why don't we expand the size of the set or make the set prettier or concentrate on the things that the players can see. This direction will probably be the trend even in the next-gen console. And I think that no one can win or no one can make a breakthrough doing this. Therefore I would like to take a different approach, and that's why I said I want to concentrate on the things we cannot see. [...]

link to third page of interview, where he says this

He also mentions that now the revolutions won't be made by hardware but by software.

[General Fuzzy McBitty]

I don't see anyone who isn't interested in gaming ploping down $400-$500 on the unit alone. For that money they need to include a freaking game.

I'm probably going with nintendo, simply because I don't have the money to keep buying a new system for those prices.

Has it occured to anyone else that one of these console companies may fold under after this generation? It's not like it was in the old days, where consoles were kid money... we're talking 400 bucks here... there's a lot more to lose in the market place.