The New Console Debates

[Devilkoopa]

When it comes to games released on all consoles currently, i go for the xbox, typically because the controller is more simplistic and the graphics are generally better. Now while i can't be sure that i will buy a 360 game surely based on its graphics, im already shying away from the rev. because of it's new controller design*


*yeah, controller adds on and what not etc. But i need some photo evidence dammit.

 

[Mic_128]

Well Reggie said at the Nintendo "Race Reggie" event that the shell will be very similar to the Wavebird design.

 

[DreamCaster]

When it comes to games released on all consoles currently, i go for the xbox, typically because the controller is more simplistic and the graphics are generally better. Now while i can't be sure that i will buy a 360 game surely based on its graphics, im already shying away from the rev. because of it's new controller design*

*yeah, controller adds on and what not etc. But i need some photo evidence dammit.

"new" controller design? You mean the movement based Remote looking controller that was revealed months ago or the recently hinted yet unrevealed "shell" controller (the Rev's "standard"/"non-arm-movement-based-run-of-the-mill" controller to play 3rd party games)?

 

[Devilkoopa]

I meant both of the new controllers. I thought that the movement one was the only controller and the shell was just an add-on.

 

[blaksheap82]

Yeah, that's what I thought, too; how did I miss that?

When it comes to games released on all consoles currently, i go for the xbox, typically because the controller is more simplistic

Okay, now am I the only person on the planet who found the Cube controller easy to use? The ginormous A button and X and Y circling it above (which were often used for the same thing, anyway) I found easy to use, becaue the size and shape difference made it easy to differentiate right off the bat, whereas the PS2 and Xbox controller face buttons were all the same size, with no difference in spacing.
The black and white buttons farther down on the Xbox controller seemed to be placed too far away for quick button pressing. The PS2 controller made my right hand cramp up when playing racing games sometimes, also.

 

[RaptorHawk]

Yea when it came to game releases I'd always choose cube over the rest because I absolutely HATE the control design of the ps2 and xbox. Now if an xbox version has online play then i might get that one.

 

[Chill]

It's only going to come down to a matter of opinion. My favorite controller of this gen was the PS2, for me it was just really comfortable and had a relaxed feel. I didn't have many complaints about the cube control but for some people it was to small. They said they kept hitting X and Y buttons when they didn't want to. My least favorite was the XBOX controller, I agree about the buttons furthur down being harder to use.

 

[Deo_Smash]

I loved the Cube controller. I have large hands and long fingers, hit all the buttons were easy for me. Plus, the A button. Ever since I first saw it, I can't get over it. It's huge! It's probaly the main reason I like the cube controller. The way the A button is rounded on teh edges the the rest stick up made it easier to hit the B, X, and Y buttons with one thumb. I could keep my thumb on the A button with out having to pick it up to hit the surrounding buttons. For that reasons is why I DON'T like the Xbox controller. I have to pick up my thumb to get the other buttons, which sounds lazy, but it's critical in tight situations. Some times I used my Index finger to hit the B or Y buttons. Playstation controllers felt nautral, like the original Nes and Snes controllers. I have nothing to complain but nother exceptional to praise.

But the Number one reason I don't like Playstation and Xbox is the Load times. I hate them. I love and praise Nintendo with practically instant gaming with the cube, DS, and GBA. I have ADD, and if you knew me, you wouldn't argue. The loading time on the PSP drives me up the wall. The loading time when Playing Halo on the Xbox drove me up the wall and around in circles. The playstation is a exception with decently fast times but it did have loadtimes. The Ps2 will not, however, escape my wrath! I burn it's load time with it's slow, but sparkly handheld off-spring. I give you a piece of my mind and keep the rest to my self. Now excuse me while I go cow-tipping.

-Deo

 

[Cashed]

New Console Debates.

 

[Destiny Smasher]

Well, I'm still interested in seeing what controller design the PS3 is gonna finally decide on.

Speaking of which, have we noticed a trend with the XBox 360?
Not only do the games feel old with new paint, but even the friggin' CONTROLLER is practically the same.

I am very excited about E3. This'll be the one where the next gen really takes off. It'll be sort of like Christmas all over again, only for my brain. Trailers, interviews, speeches, ideas...Yummy.

And whether or not it's going to be in 3rd place or it's going to surprise us all and take 1st, I'm putting my money where the Revolution is. Not that I won't want to play the PS3 and what-not.

I feel like Nintendo practically has earned my money just for choosing to be different, do things more artistically, and make me rethink how I play games. I'm dying to get my hands on Nintendogs, and I have no idea why.

The sad thing is, every fresh and original idea isn't like Nintendogs or Katamari. I mean, good games don't always sell. How well has Shadow of the Colossus done? And why should developers make beautiful, artistic, clever games like Psychonauts when nobody BUYS them?

I'll buy them, anyway. The next gen. 'war' is gonna be crazy, but I'm wondering just how much of a 'war' it will be. It's looking more like a matter of choices to me.

 

[Cashed]

Speaking of which, have we noticed a trend with the XBox 360?
Not only do the games feel old with new paint, but even the friggin' CONTROLLER is practically the same.

So all the games "feel old with new paint"? How about you play the console with all its features playing the final versions of the games?

The controller isn't the same. Microsoft moved the awkwardly placed buttons (Black, white, back and start) to better locations and added the Xbox Guide button, which is a wonder of things. You have access to the entire system from the Xbox Guide button. You can start a chat with another player, look at your friends list, look at your players list, send messages, change the custom soundtracks of the game, compare your gamerscore to other players and more. Microsoft changed the controller to be more comfortable and to make the console easier to use, which I have to say they did a damn good job doing.

 

[blaksheap82]

New Console Debates.

Yeah, but with the amount of info we have, it's better than seven posts per page centering on waiting for E3.

Deo Smash, I have large palms with long and thick fingers, so I know exactly what you're talking about. The Mad Katz controller was actually better for me because the two parts on the sides that came down were rounder and much thicker, so it filled my palms better when I held the controller.

 

[Chill]

I feel like Nintendo practically has earned my money just for choosing to be different, do things more artistically, and make me rethink how I play games. I'm dying to get my hands on Nintendogs, and I have no idea why.

It wasn't a choice as much as it was a requirement. Do you honestly think if Nintendo had the same sales as the PS2 they would have created the new controller? Of course not Nintendo has to create something different if they want to make any money off their consoles. At this point they literally have nothing to lose.

 

[blaksheap82]

Not to mention, Nin's always said that their focus has been games and nothing else, but you have a point, would they still use the same strategy if they made cash off their games like Sony? I have a feeling they would somewhat, but we really can't be sure.

 

[DreamCaster]

Nin's always said that their focus has been games and nothing else

No, I feel that that Nintendo's direction now (and perhaps always has been) is gameplay (hardware specific). If their focus was primarily on just games Nintendo would make games (ideally as a third party with no hassles with hardware, they would make just games pure and simple). However ever since the post SNES days Nintendo has been quirky about their hardware every now and then. The Virtual Boy, the N64 controller (ideal for hooking up peripherals such as the Gameboy carriage upload perif), the GBA to GC link cable (required for some games, i.e. Crystal Chronicles), the Nintendo DS, now the Rev controller. Nintendo wants to make better and more creative games and in doing so they are beginning to tweak with the way gamers play games (gameplay). Where as Xbox360 and PS3 are more or less the same gaming formula with improved graphics Nintendo is trying to really do something new here. But that doesn't mean formulaic games are rusted relics of the past. Look at Kingdom Hearts, Shadow of the Colossus, Dragon Quest VIII or The Legend of Zelda series, games that use your basic controls (jump, attack/RPG menu/Turn Based/etc.) yet are still incredible games because of well told story and polished gameplay (as well as visuals and music that fit the story and gameplay). Even look at (the first) Warioware, gameplay in it's most basic form, games we have all played hundreds of times over, but the presentation was so new and unique it was still a great game to play.

That is why I'm also worried Nintendo may be straying too far into the realm of "the game is good because it's quirky" rather than "the game is good because it has a solid foundation in presentation, story, and gameplay". I breathe a sigh of relief when I look at the new Zelda game (as classic as they come, and hopefully the story and gameplay will be polished to perfection), but I just hope Nintendo doesn't fall into the mindset of "gimmicky and never before seen = automatically good!" The Rev controller is unique and will bring forth games that would have never been dreamed up before its existence, but without solid games with solid gameplay the Rev's games could be just quirky games that's all. Revolutionizing the way we play games and all is great, but even formulaic games can be stellar when polished and presented with care and diligence. I guess we really can't determine which system has the strongest games until more games are shown (will E3'06 ever come)?!

P.S. 1000th post! Yippie!!

 

[McFox]

but I just hope Nintendo doesn't fall into the mindset of "gimmicky and never before seen = automatically good!"

Well, I don't think we have much to worry about with TP, considering it's a Gamecube game.

 

[Crimson King]

Rumors went around that since it was pushed to the Rev release they were going just make it a Revolution game.

No clue the validity, but I have heard that quite a bit over the past month.

 

[<π]

It wasn't a choice as much as it was a requirement. Do you honestly think if Nintendo had the same sales as the PS2 they would have created the new controller? Of course not Nintendo has to create something different if they want to make any money off their consoles. At this point they literally have nothing to lose.

Chill of course is joking.

Nintendo wants not to be different, but to make the gaming world a better place. They held the handheld market with an iron fist and kept making their system better graphically, but now, the DS is here completely different and NOT out of necessity but out of want to please the consumer; something that they’d enjoy using.
Nintendo has said from the get go at this point systems shouldn't be about graphics because they are already amazing, just look at LoZ:TP. the direction they want to go in is giving gamers a new experience, not because "Oh we want to be competitive" but because they want to give the consumer something enjoyable.

 

[blaksheap82]

Nin's always said that their focus has been games and nothing else

No, I feel that that Nintendo's direction now (and perhaps always has been) is gameplay (hardware specific).

Sorry, that was actually what I meant, I just misspoke-er, misposted, so I pretty much agree with you.

As for TP being moved to the Rev, I made a couple of posts about the magazine where that rumor started, and how they need to get their facts straight, not to mention the majority of the article is speculation, mostly to create hype and/or boost their sales.

 

[Hat Hair]

Rumors went around that since it was pushed to the Rev release they were going just make it a Revolution game.

No clue the validity, but I have heard that quite a bit over the past month.

I don't see that happening at all as if it did, it would be totally bone-headed. Not everybody is going to purchase a Revolution right off the bat, so by making TP a Revolution exclusive, Nintendo would be denying a lot of people who don't own a Revolution but own a GC a major opportunity--one that would reap millions.

And also, isn't another Zelda game that's centered around the Revolution and its controller being pushed for launch?

 

[Chill]

Nintendo wants not to be different, but to make the gaming world a better place. They held the handheld market with an iron fist and kept making their system better graphically, but now, the DS is here completely different and NOT out of necessity but out of want to please the consumer; something that they’d enjoy using.

You sure about that? When Sony decided that they where going to make a handheld Nintendo likely thought they had to make something different. If they had just updated the gameboy kept a single screen and improved the graphics what would the system have looked like when next to a PSP?

Nintendo has said from the get go at this point systems shouldn't be about graphics because they are already amazing, just look at LoZ:TP. the direction they want to go in is giving gamers a new experience, not because "Oh we want to be competitive" but because they want to give the consumer something enjoyable.

Nintendo is not the only company that want's to give gamers a new and enjoyable experience. They are just the only ones using a controller to do it. As DreamCaster pointed out, there are plenty of games based on existing formulas that are new and highly original.

More powerful hardware doesn't just equal better graphics. It allows developers to add things to the games that enhance the expeirience and make the game more fun. I still recall an interview with Mr. Miyamoto when super Mario World was released. He said that they had wanted Mario to be able to ride a dinosaur in the first SM game but because of technology it was impossible.

I am of course not joking.

 

[Crimson King]

I don't see that happening at all as if it did, it would be totally bone-headed. Not everybody is going to purchase a Revolution right off the bat, so by making TP a Revolution exclusive, Nintendo would be denying a lot of people who don't own a Revolution but own a GC a major opportunity--one that would reap millions.

well, TP is delayed until the Revolution's release, GCN or not. That was announced a while back. Now, with the announcement of the Zelda Launch title, that made people connect the dots. As you were saying, Nintendo would not lose a cent if they put it as a Rev game. All they have to say is the game got bigger than they thought and the GCN couldn't support it. So, rather than scaling it down and compensating creative design they push it to the Rev. That way all the people who were guarenteed to by TP on the GCN, will buy a Rev. AND TP. Because without Twilight Princess, the GCN has no more major releases, and with it so close to the Revolution's release there is no way they could equally devote time to two games of the same character but different titles on different consoles. It would be quite an effective move to boost sales.

 

[kaid]

TP has been delayed to April. Rev comes out in November.

The April date was from the mouth of Reggie, and the November date was passed on by 3rd party developers.

Nintendo used Zelda as an example of how the controller could be used, and said they would not forget the existing franchises. Nowhere did they say there would be a Zelda launch title.

 

[blaksheap82]

Crimson, where did you get that info? I hope it wasn't that NGC, I tore it up in the TP thread. I'm not trusting a thing that magazine says.

 

[Hat Hair]

TP has been delayed to April. Rev comes out in November.

The April date was from the mouth of Reggie, and the November date was passed on by 3rd party developers.

Nintendo used Zelda as an example of how the controller could be used, and said they would not forget the existing franchises. Nowhere did they say there would be a Zelda launch title.

because without Twilight Princess, the GCN has no more major releases, and with it so close to the Revolution's release there is no way they could equally devote time to two games of the same character but different titles on different consoles. It would be quite an effective move to boost sales.

The underlined is what I think also, but according to multiple sources (kaid), including EGM (Dec issue), that scream "OFFICIAL," there will be a Zelda for the Revolution's launch. I am somewhat skeptical, however.

Do you think it unreasonable to assess that it (if at all) could be a rehash kitted for the controller?

 

[Crimson King]

That would be a terrible idea and piss alot of people off.

That would be like Halo 2 being released for XBox then RE-released for the 360 at a higher price.

 

[blaksheap82]

Yeah, that would probably be one of the worst decisions for the next gen, and right off the bat to boot.

 

[kaid]

However, one of the reasons/rumors TP was delayed was to add an alternate control scheme, using the Rev controller.
If this is true, then 1 game releace, 7 months before the Rev, could simotaniously give GC one last fling, and make it worth getting the Rev just for the additional gameplay on the game you've already bought.

 

[Giygas]

More powerful hardware doesn't just equal better graphics. It allows developers to add things to the games that enhance the expeirience and make the game more fun. I still recall an interview with Mr. Miyamoto when super Mario World was released. He said that they had wanted Mario to be able to ride a dinosaur in the first SM game but because of technology it was impossible.

Right, but you also must realize that that was going from the NES to SNES. When you could fundamentally change a game by adding a rideable dinosaur, that was a much bigger technological achievement compared to making more individual blades of grass or making the crowd in a Madden game realistic. Sure, it's nice to look at on the new hardware, but graphics in games have come to a "saturation point", if that's the right phrase for it.

"The Revolution is like a souped-up Xbox..."

...and the Xbox 360 isn't?

 

[Chill]

Right, but you also must realize that that was going from the NES to SNES. When you could fundamentally change a game by adding a rideable dinosaur, that was a much bigger technological achievement compared to making more individual blades of grass or making the crowd in a Madden game realistic. Sure, it's nice to look at on the new hardware, but graphics in games have come to a "saturation point", if that's the right phrase for it.

The graphics in games have only reached a "saturation point" if your trying to reproduce something you can see in real life. Most games are based in a fantasy world and more powerful hardware can only make those games better. Even though some advancments have to deal with things you see thats not all that you get.

Things that are for the eyes also make the game more fun. You like to become immersed in a game right? Well which would you find more accurately depicts an huge battle scene. A field with 200 soldiers on it or a field with 4,000 soldiers on it?

In terms of gameplay hardware still improves on it. If you thought controlling 100 pikmin was fun imagine controlling thousands if not more an a enormous world. Instead of leading a group of them to a spot and then giving them one task to complete, imagine being able to tell them what to do ahead of time.

Did your yellow pikmin fall in the water? It's okay you already programmed the blue ones to drop whatever they are doing and help them out if they start to drown. Red pikmin just standing around after completing a task? Of course not you already told them to scout out an area for new items. And while purples clear out an area of enemys you harvest pikmin you planted the night before. Of course the world would be of immense size. That changes a game right? It's only possible on stronger system.

More powerful hardware is not just for better looking grass.

 

[kaid]

Xbox 360 has the best graphics chip of the consoles, giving it the best look, and supports an internal harddrive. It also has Xbox Live, and Bungie and Rare supporting it, along with many others.

PS3 has the best processor, allowing it to do more at once, like handle thousands of enemy AI at once. It supports Blu-ray disks, a tech that is not common yet but could become so in the future. It is supported by SquareSoft and several others.

Revolution has an innovative interface that has every third-party game designer drooling. It also has free online gaming, similar to microsoft's Xbox live, and cheap retro-gaming, by downloading official roms of past Nintendo and 3rd party games to the onboard flash memory. It is supported by Nintendo's own in-house game designers, along with numerous 2nd party companys and good relationships with Sega and Namco.


Obviously, this is not everything... anyone want to add or comment?

 

[blaksheap82]

Just one sort of nitpicky comment, that a quote I read in Game Informer (I'm not totally sure if it was GI, though) from some sort of big exec of some company I guess I didn't care about that much shows not every 3rd party company is drooling over the Remote: "Don't kid yourself. You are going to see more gimmick based, 'Why oh why did I buy this'? horrible games based on that controller than you can imagine." I'm pretty sure that was the quote almost verbatim, but when I read it the tone sounded almost nervous or something like the jealousy or envy resulting from wishing you'd had the great idea someone else did. Whatever it was, he didn't sound too convincing.

 

[kaid]

I think I remember that. It was someone associated with a Sony 2nd-party, if I remember corectly... don't quote me, though.

 

[Giygas]

Things that are for the eyes also make the game more fun. You like to become immersed in a game right? Well which would you find more accurately depicts an huge battle scene. A field with 200 soldiers on it or a field with 4,000 soldiers on it?

Correct, but graphics-wise, game systems aren't making as big of a leap from generation to generation as they once were. The change in graphics is less and less dramatic per round of consoles. I'm not saying that it isn't significant anymore (having more units is great and all), but there is a saturation point, and Microsoft and Sony are poking at it with their systems.

 

[Crimson King]

Which means the consoles will focus strictly on gameplay as they should.

I really can't even imagine what the PS4/XBox 3 will even be able to do that the PS3/360 are doing. Of course, the same was thought with the PS3/360 after playing PS2 games and such.

 

[Mic_128]

Just one sort of nitpicky comment, that a quote I read in Game Informer (I'm not totally sure if it was GI, though) from some sort of big exec of some company I guess I didn't care about that much shows not every 3rd party company is drooling over the Remote: "Don't kid yourself. You are going to see more gimmick based, 'Why oh why did I buy this'? horrible games based on that controller than you can imagine." I'm pretty sure that was the quote almost verbatim, but when I read it the tone sounded almost nervous or something like the jealousy or envy resulting from wishing you'd had the great idea someone else did. Whatever it was, he didn't sound too convincing.

It was a Microsoft Head. And before he said that he claimed they had the idea but didn't want to go with it.

Eric, the thing is that for every game that focuses on Gameplay there's about 5 games that try and go on graphics alone with an incredably bad gameplay part. It's a 3rd Party thing, not a specific console issue. "Why be bothered if we can just make it look nice?" seems to be a common catchphrase. :/

 

[blaksheap82]

It was a Microsoft head? No! I'm genuinely in shock! Especially since that quote and what you said, Mic, about choosing graphics over gameplay, which is often Microsoft's MO.

 

[Crimson King]

Yea, blaksheap, I mean Halo 1 and 2, Fable, Deathrow, Fuzion Frenzy, Munch's Oddessy, and Shadow's Wrath were totally JUST for graphics and had no fun factor. See, comments like that is why gamers are so biased. You don't allow yourself to have fun with all game consoles.

Mic, good point. But, you can't have a game with terrible graphics and solely rely on funfactor anymore. It's a novel concept, but it won't sell massively as it would have say 10 years ago.

 

[kaid]

Nintendo seems to disagree with Crimson King, in the act of making NES, SNES, and N64 games playable on their system. They actually expect people to buy them... and so does Square and Capcom, who have officially endorsed the sale of their retro games.

Time will tell.

EDIT: or, if you're refering strictly to Next gen games... Define "Terrible Graphics." If the Xbox is "terrible" in the graphics department, then yes, the Rev could potentially have "terrible graphics."

I guess it's whatever you're used to.

 

[Crimson King]

My whole post was an extremely sarcastic response to Blaksheap's stupid comment that all Microsoft cars about is graphics.

Also, just because they allow Nintendo to use their games (I assure at a cost) doesn't mean it will be a gold mine. Fact is, I can't see many people paying anything for games they could easily download for free. In fact, with the ability to download NES, SNES, and N64 games, hackers can make ever better roms for downloading. I know my XBox played those games just as good and I didn't have to buy them again. Unless they add new content, it's a waste to spend any money on a game that is at least 10 years old.