The New Console Debates

[Mic_128]

The DS is beating the PSP simply because with a few exceptions (Luminites, Wipeout, GTA) there are very little games worth getting.

I mean, all that's different is a few things switching places. Even the general shape is the same.

Well in that case, The GC controller is just a modified PS controller.

 

[kaid]

...which was a modified SNES controller. your point?

 

[Hat Hair]

^*shakes head*

His point is that Zink shouldn't go bashing the PS3 and Xbox 360's controllers for a lack of originality when the GameCube controller wasn't very original at all (well, if you ask me), you fool.

And the PSP could use some more good games. You gotta hand it to Sony for not pushing rehashes on its handheld unlike Nintendo on multiple accounts, but I think that a FFVII remake would sell very well and, as such, would be a smart decision. Especially what with Advent Children's current release.

Devil May Cry, Katamari, and Viewtiful Joe titles are all coming out for it, though...

 

[Mic_128]

You gotta hand it to Sony for not pushing rehashes on its handheld

Yeah, they do PS2 ports instead.

 

[Zink]

Mic, I was just pointing out the similarities between this and the next generation. I know they were based on past controllers. But the point is that today's and tomorrow's controller's are a lot more similar than they have been in the past. Obviously most controllers have built on past ones.

 

[blaksheap82]

Yeah, they do PS2 ports instead.

Lol, I keep saying, PSP stands for Port Station Predictable.

Graphics are so advanced. I bet if you showed someone 3 different images, one from Revo, one from 360, and one from PS3, they would not be able to tell which was which.

I can't really say one way or the other for the next gen, but I know that in most magazines, I couldn't tell the three apart for multi-platforms. I think I might have said this before but I can't remember, but I know I'd been meaning to: Graphics can be, and should be more often than they are, an art form. When impressionism first came out, the people who all thought they knew what art was said it was crap. When the WW trailer was first shown, the reaction wasn't much different. I just wish that more people would stop measuring a game's graphical worth on how realistic it is. It seems that every new or at least innovative graphics style, like Ultimate Spider-Man, is not aiming for realism, because we've all seen that millions of times. Instead they're just trying to find something that will get your attention when you see it. Part of what was new about Ultimate Spider-Man wasn't even the overall look, it was the way the cutscenes were animated.

I for one just can't afford a PS3 or Xbox 360, so I think they must be catering to the over 20 crowd, hence the proliferation of M rated games. Nintendo is selling at around $100 to $200, so they are reaching a wider market. Many people say that the Big N is looking for a niche market, but they are really expanding their fanbse while keeping veterans engaged.

I can't afford that, either. And the niche market theory is in direct contradiction of the facts, you're right. I can't remember the number of times I've heard it pointed out how people who don't play video games much or are new to them intuitively move their hands with the controller, and how similar that instinct is to the Remote's interface. Add onto that the projected-low price, and it's obvious Nin is not trying to expand its market, even to those to whom video games are foreign. It even shows an old man using the Remote in that fake video Nin released at the time they unveiled the Remote. That's a market practically ignored by MS and Sony.

 

[Mic_128]

Obviously most controllers have built on past ones.

Then why point it out?

 

[Zink]

It looks like current controllers are just more similar. I bet you could play a game on each console and be able to use the controls well in 10 minutes.

PS: I want that cooking game .

 

[Chill]

I for one just can't afford a PS3 or Xbox 360, so I think they must be catering to the over 20 crowd, hence the proliferation of M rated games. Nintendo is selling at around $100 to $200, so they are reaching a wider market. Many people say that the Big N is looking for a niche market, but they are really expanding their fanbse while keeping veterans engaged.

I'm not over 20 and I can afford a 360. Cashed is younger than me and he bought a 360. I'm not saying the lower price on the Rev isn't a good thing but just because something doesn't work for you does not mean it doesn't work for anyone else. The gamecube sold at $200 did it increase Nintendos fanbase?

It's going to come down to the games. If Nintendo has the games that people want it's going to sell well. If it doesn't it won't. Price is not the determining factor. On the remark about the elderly man in the fake vid, the thing is the video is just that. Fake. Your not going to see senior citizens buying the Rev in droves the image is just used to show the "family atmosphere".

 

[Zink]

I was saying the parents of younger people are more likely to buy a $200 game console than a $500 console/dvd player/internet browser/ word processor/coffemaker thing, especially when it is almost a carbon copy of last year's console, you already have a computer, you already have a dvd player... So I think price will be important, but not dominating, judging from your post.

 

[blaksheap82]

I'm not over 20 and I can afford a 360. Cashed is younger than me and he bought a 360.

I'll be twenty in a month and while I could pay $400 for a X360, it wouldn't be a smart move on my part, because it's called a "savings" account for a reason.

On the remark about the elderly man in the fake vid, the thing is the video is just that. Fake. Your not going to see senior citizens buying the Rev in droves the image is just used to show the "family atmosphere".

That was practically my point. I don't expect to see the old folks' home down the street empty on the day the Rev is released, but how many people that age, or even baby boomers, who if I remember correctly are the biggest demographic right now, play video games? I can think of one that I know off the top of my head, and she's been playing video games since the 8-bit days, when she was not much older than the majority of us (she's even in the Nin Hall of Fame or something like that for beating Zelda: A Link to the Past without any continues). That was the point I was making about Nin's strategy this gen, to draw others to video games who don't really play them, even make it a family activity.

 

[Zink]

Usually grandparents buy consoles for kids. Now it'll be the other way around. OK, not quite, but I can picture a 60-year-old guy playing a game that he was good at in real life as a kid. Like a retired fencing master playing a swordfighting game.

 

[Giygas]

For the record, the 18-24 (and to a larger extent, 18-36) age group spends the most money on video games. So they are the ones that Sony and MS are targeting.

Is that better? Gee, whoever said "over 20" really got you guys riled up.

 

[blaksheap82]

Actually, I can see the fencing master thinking it's a crude imitation of real life. He might be impressed if the control is good, but still. A hypothetical scenario of what Nin is aiming for, maybe the fencing master wants to spend time with his grandson, so they play a game like that (which I know logistically wouldn't work, just bear with me), and they each get to do something they enjoy while doing it together.

 

[Chill]

For the record, the 18-24 (and to a larger extent, 18-36) age group spends the most money on video games. So they are the ones that Sony and MS are targeting.

I'm curious if that number(18-24) is really correct. If that range does spend the most money I'd be interested in knowing the margin of difference between that and the 25 and up group. I read that parents in the US spend more money on their childrens recreation than the US military budget (obviously they aren't just buying video games but they must spend a hefty amount).

Anyways, they clearly aren't the only ones being targeting or else we wouldn't see the mass amount of Barbie, Rugrats, Bratz, etc. games coming out.

 

[blaksheap82]

I'm curious if that number(18-24) is really correct. If that range does spend the most money I'd be interested in knowing the margin of difference between that and the 25 and up group. I read that parents in the US spend more money on their childrens recreation than the US military budget (obviously they aren't just buying video games but they must spend a hefty amount).

Anyways, they clearly aren't the only ones being targeting or else we wouldn't see the mass amount of Barbie, Rugrats, Bratz, etc. games coming out.

None of which would there even be a market for if there was no baby boom. That's also why I think that market aims toward the parents in reality, not the kids. The parents are the ones with the money, and from what Chill said it's obvious they spend a lot of it. Man, that makes me sick. If the US alone stopped making armaments for one day, it could feed the entire world on the money not spent on weapons. But then American parents spend even more on their kids toys, while 300 people starve to death every ten minutes (or some statistic along those lines)? That's just disgusting.

 

[Giygas]

I read that parents in the US spend more money on their childrens recreation than the US military budget (obviously they aren't just buying video games but they must spend a hefty amount).

Anyways, they clearly aren't the only ones being targeting or else we wouldn't see the mass amount of Barbie, Rugrats, Bratz, etc. games coming out.

I'm sure that the top-selling games this generation at over 12 million units each (GTA: San Andreas and GTA: Vice City) were purchased for children's recreation by parents. And you also have to define "children" and define "recreation" to have any sort of credibility to that statement. Recreation could mean anything from summer camp to a new bike to movies to toys to... etc.

And I didn't say that they (the 18-24 demographic) were the only ones targeted. It's just that they're the most sought-after audience in the market, at least when you look at current demographics. Most of the biggest games that have come out or will be coming out are geared towards them. Halo 2 (and 3), the GTA series, Half-Life 2, Gears of War, Quake IV, Metal Gear Solid 4, Resident Evil 4 (and 5), off the top of my head.

 

[Chill]

Did you miss the part where I said obviously they aren't just buying games? The 18-24 (which you have yet to show that they spend the most) demographic is the biggest audience for any console maker, even Nintendo, if they do infact spend the most money. Even if Nintendo expands it's market to other groups of people, my point was other groups of people are already buying games or having games bought for them. I wouldn't know how many but even those M rated titles have been purchased by parents for children. The number may be unknown but I thought it was unlikely for 18-24 to spend more money on games when the older buyers purchase both for themselves and their children.

 

[Zink]

I was really surprised when I found out that parents buy games like the GTA series for their 10-year-old kids, but I saw a letter from a clerk in EB Games in Game Informer and he said that even though policy requires that he warns them of what they are buying, they buy it anyway. Then, when they discover just what little Jimmy is playing, they get mad and write letters to everyone they can think of. This is a bit shocking. Are parents really that unobservant? I know my parents actually ask what the games I want are about.
This is aimed at mostly Sony: I am so sick of games which are based on urban violence and crime. When a crime-based game has the potential to be voted Game of the Year because of lots of missions and huge maps, you've got a problem.

 

[blaksheap82]

Giygas, I understand what you're saying, but Chill and Zink are right, parents buy games like that for their games, and it's sad. In response to what Zink said about parents getting mad, I think that a lot of people who didn't grow up playing video games, especially ones that were realistic enough to merit ratings (like how it all started with Mortal Kombat), don't realize that playing an M-rated game is almost the same as playing out an R-rated movie. I think if they realized that, or what kind of content is really in an M-rated game (like shooting old ladies, stealing their cars, then running over the dead body with the car you just stole from them), they wouldn't buy those games for their kids so readily. But then you still have the parents that take their five-year-olds to R-rated movies, so they wouldn't care about video game ratings.

BTW, Zink, I agree totally. Not just crime-based games. I don't understand how people can hear about the horrors of war and what an atrocity is, but games based on wars get all kinds of awards and rave reviews, almost like designers can't even think up fictional violence anymore, they have to use war as a basis. And then the game designed by the military is only rated T. Go figure.

 

[Zink]

The big problems I have with these games is that a) most of the time you play as someone "bad" like a criminal, and b) there is just way too much violence. Running over old ladies is not an idea we want to promote among the American youth. Especially if you stole the old lady's car to run drugs or escape the police or something.

 

[blaksheap82]

I skimmed through EGM's "Top 2OO Games of All Time" article today, and I just thought it was kind of funny how the list was over half retro games, I think. The list also mentioned retro games more and more the closer it got to #1, which was Super Mario Bros., and the original Zelda was like #2 or something. The whole thing just reminded me of this discussion, especially how the newer the game, the more common it was that it would be violent. I realize that it's the composite opinion of the EGM staff, but if the whole staff voted, that's still a pretty diverse opinion, especially seeing as it's a multi-platform mag. (There were some really weird choices, like a Spider-Man game for Atari, without even mentioning any of the recent ones like Spider-Man 2; LoZ:WW was a couple spots below MM, almost at the bottom of the list; and a few others. At least SSBM was in the top 100. The caption said "Billions of things to unlock. And Yoshi pummeling Pikachu with a bat," lol.)

 

[Deo_Smash]

Super Mario Bros. got First? Cool. I've seen 2 other top 200 list and Mario Bros appeared like close in the top 20's in both list. But on the other two list Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time came first. But what I'm wait for is Twilight Princess. Considering it already seems to better than Oot in all ways, I think it will be our next greastest game of all time. But with next gen coming, can Nintendo top itself again or will Microsoft, Sony, or some third party developer take the gold?

 

[blaksheap82]

Backtracking a bit, but the violence topic is actually something that has me a little concerned when it comes to the Remote. Some kids are already taught that violence is fun and that life is cheap, but what are they going to think when they are one giant step closer to swinging a sword in real life? I saw a comic today where a couple was watching their son play video games, and the mom says "Johnny enjoys those games so much, I think it's time we got him a real gun." So for anyone who thinks games don't desensitize people to violence, what's that kid going to think about responsibility when it comes to using a firearm? He won't think about it at all, because the only violence he's seen is virtual, and there are no repercussions of that.

 

[Deo_Smash]

I watched G4's special on video game violence and during the credits they showed this shot of 2 kids playing a gun game who then said "I don't understand how video games make people want to do violince in real life. I mean, this is just a game, not real life." When kids play games, it's the parents responcibilty to ensure they play the right games. If they let children play violent games, then the parents should teach their children the differnce between relife and games and the actions they do in real life have real effects, people don't get extra lives or respawn after being shot.

 

[Zink]

As I pointed out before, the parents don't always make the right choices.

 

[Mic_128]

It's only a few people who are already unstable who would end up killing/shooting someone.

 

[Zink]

That's not really the point... kids will think killing is nothing. It creates a bad atmosphere.

 

[Mic_128]

I don't think so, what with lightgun games already existng.

 

[Zink]

And have you played a current-gen lightgun game?

 

[Mic_128]

Point, shoot, kill. Yep.

 

[Zink]

I mean one with a light gun accessory. Is there any for GCN, PS2, or XBox?

 

[Hat Hair]

Just what are you getting at?

 

[Cashed]

http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/232272.asp - PS2 Light Gun

http://www.ebgames.com/ebx/product/231963.asp - Xbox Light Gun

 

[Destiny Smasher]

OK, I don't see the argument here about the 'lightgun' and what-not corrupting kids. What the heck, dude? Who cares whether you're aiming a plastic gun or killing them with analog sticks? It's still killing.
And yea, if your kid thinks killing is OK because a fantasy game has killing in it, I don't think that's the game's fault, I think that's the kid/parents' fault.
People who play GTA and kill people afterward are already messed up to begin with, and games or no games, they'd still be prone to violence. I play violent games like RE4 and God of War and love them, but I NEVER even CONSIDER doing those things in reality. It's called differentiating reality from fantasy. If your kid can't do that, they shouldn't be playing games or watching TV with violence in them at all, in my opinion.
Anyway, as far as next-gen goes, the 360 is out, and though I'm impressed with the hardware's functions and the online bits, the games don't strike me as next-gen. When the most popular 360 game is Geometry Wars, you know there's something wrong with the launch lineup. Also, 360 is concentrating so much on all the things its hardware can do, yet, where IS this hardware? They can't even get enough of it out.
PS3? Well, we hardly know a thing about it, except it looks to be a beefier machine than 360, and it's gonna have MGS4.
Revolution? I'd argue we know more about THAT than the PS3 by now. Rev. is taking a lot of risks, but they look like exciting ones to me. I hope they can nail the online system, the Virtual Console, and making quality, rich games with a unique control scheme that works.
We'll find out when May rears its glorious head.

 

[Deo_Smash]

Oy to that, Destiny Smasher.

The 360 is just an amped up Xbox. I mean, look at the name! 360. A complete circle, and thats all Mircosoft is doing and going nowhere fast. It can turn all it wants but it will only wound back up where it started.

The PS3, a sequel as the name points out. It may turn out to be the Return of the Jedi or The Phantom Menance. But if it's price is as high as I've heard ($400-700, possibilities in the thousands!), it won't be very popular amongst us with thin wallet.

The Revolution seems to be living up to its name to most people, alot of people. It's totally changing the way games are going to be played. If the Revo sales turn out to be anything like the DS, we are going to see great things.

While the others have the raw power to produce surpreme graphics, Nintendo has seemed to play differnt cards to get the same grade, according to their patents. When we see 3 televisions set up together with each system hooked up to one, we will be able to tell which one is differnt because the Revo will be doing stuff beyond the other 2 can even caculate. Plus, it will be cheaper.

But how it all goes down? I dunno.

We'll find out when May rears its glorious head.

 

[Cashed]

Anyway, as far as next-gen goes, the 360 is out, and though I'm impressed with the hardware's functions and the online bits, the games don't strike me as next-gen. When the most popular 360 game is Geometry Wars, you know there's something wrong with the launch lineup. Also, 360 is concentrating so much on all the things its hardware can do, yet, where IS this hardware? They can't even get enough of it out.

Call of Duty 2 is the most popular 360 game as of right now. It's sold more than anything, even with the $60 price tag. There's nothing wrong with Geometry Wars Retro Evolved, either, it's the best arcade game out right now and it's a lot of fun. I would say something was wrong with the launch if maybe a re-release of an arcade game was the top selling game on the 360, but Geometry Wars Retro Evolved is a new game. It's a 360 game. Nothing else. And yeah, Microsoft is saying the 360 is really strong, and it is. Developers agree the machine is strong, but they're barely showing it at all. Microsoft wants games out right now which isn't giving developers the time they need to learn the new hardware (specifically multi-core multi-thread coding), and as we all know, launch titles don't look nearly as good as games down the road do. Wait for E3, where we should see some pretty pretty games. As in, you know, Halo 3. :D

 

[Deo_Smash]

I was burned out on the Halo series because, to me, it was over-hyped. I just kept hearing how good it was, correction, how its-the-best-freaking-looking-game-ever-made-so-cool-blah-blah-blah....yeah. These were the things i've heard at school and seen on TV. When I finally got my hands on it, I was not impressed. I even got a headache. What the hell? A game consider this good should not give me brain damage. I've gotten better at it but there are a few things that should not be missing from a game like this.
1) Background Music: Espicailly in the Multi Player part of it. Nothing gets me pumped more than BG music in a game. It could be a crappy game but with some good beat to it, man I can get into it. Halo lacked that Drive, even Halo 2. What the hell?
2)Weapon Varity: There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of choices when it comes to weaponry. This goes for all games, varity is key. That what makes SSBM so **** good. Halo doesn't have a gatling gun. I would enjoy any FPS with a gatling. Metriod Prime doesn't have a gatling, I know, but with the power beam and an auto-A button, you'll get about the same effect.
3) Bosses: WTF?! 2 games into the series and no bosses! That spidery things does not count because you don't technically take on the spider, just the minions inside. Thats like a sub-level. Ok, so the warhammer guy is pretty much the only boss in the series. That is no excuse nor exception. Using a banshee to take on one of the spider things would be an awsoume fight! Flying around while being shot by a huge beamy thing would a step in the right direction for Halo.

But the reason above are just not for Halo, but for any action game that I've seen latly. Mainly in the FPS genre, with the exception of Metriod Prime (Samus kicks ***! woot!). I sincerly hope they fix these problems in the next gen of gaming, espcially Halo 3. It constructive critism not complaints, sort of.

 

[Mic_128]

1) Background Music: Espicailly in the Multi Player part of it. Nothing gets me pumped more than BG music in a game. It could be a crappy game but with some good beat to it, man I can get into it. Halo lacked that Drive, even Halo 2. What the hell?

Halo 2 is a competative game. When playing it on LIVE (or system link or whatever) you want to be able to hear the tiny sounds made by the enemy, not have them drowned out by the background music. If it doesn't come with any, just turn on a CD player.

2)Weapon Varity: There just doesn't seem to be a whole lot of choices when it comes to weaponry. This goes for all games, varity is key. That what makes SSBM so **** good. Halo doesn't have a gatling gun. I would enjoy any FPS with a gatling. Metriod Prime doesn't have a gatling, I know, but with the power beam and an auto-A button, you'll get about the same effect.

What does Metroid Prime have to do with this? And I'm pretty sure Halo has more weapons then Metroid.

But the reason above are just not for Halo, but for any action game that I've seen latly. Mainly in the FPS genre, with the exception of Metriod Prime (Samus kicks ***! woot!). I sincerly hope they fix these problems in the next gen of gaming, espcially Halo 3. It constructive critism not complaints, sort of.

Metroid is a First person adventure, not a shooter.

 

[Devilkoopa]

(Weapon Varity comment) ....how many god**** weapons do u consider a variety? In Halo 2, you get so many different options (no gatling gun, but do you realize how unbalanced a gatling gun really is?) take into consideration that you can only hold 2 guns and your gun choices get really specific. Ya see, if you have too many guns available to you. it's hard to determine which guns you should really aim for, and which guns are worthless (this is pretty much why i sucked at goldeneye). The beatuy of halo 2 is taht you get enough guns so that everyone can form their own little stategy, w/o any one person owning the entire map with one gun*





*"But what about the sword/ rocket launcher?" Well, if you can't figure out how to take down 1 sword or rocket launcher player, you're playing the wrong game. It's not some sore of 1337 move, cause every weapon has its own drawbacks.



BTW: Metroid prime < Halo 2. But then again they're completely different genres.