So what's next?

[Aswald]

To be honest, I'm not especially impressed with the "advances" of the latest generation of home consoles- they just don't seem to be able to really do anything NEW, unlike when the original Playstation and Nintendo 64 came out, with their ability to handle games like Mario 64 and Spyro the Dragon- games not really possible (or at least practical) with the 16-Bit generation.


Since not much time had passed between the current and previous generations, it may well be that before long the next generation will be released, in spite of underwhelming consumer demand.

What will they offer, do you think? Anything truly NEW, anything that absolutely couldn't be done now?

[dlopez9069]

i truly think that something new has come along its just that its not as visible as it once was. when the n64 and ps1 came out everyone realized the huge difference between 16 and 64 bit. now however the differences are smaller yet still very effective such as smart AIs more fluid movement and better story lines.

[Kid Ice]

Funny, I think all three systems are a huge advance over their predecessors (in terms of HD visuals and network capability). If you ask me it was the previous generation (PS2, Xbox, GC) that didn't go anywhere.

[Aswald]

Well, any advance counts as something, true...but I mean will it be something that actually really matters to gamers? For real? We seem to have hit a plateau with both arcade and home gaming.

[Griking]

now however the differences are smaller yet still very effective such as smart AIs more fluid movement and better story lines.

Maybe its me but I don't see how upgrading to the latest hardware is going to all of a sudden let developers create better story lines. And some games have had smart AI for a while now, so that's not entirely hardware related either.

[CosmicMonkey]

We're reaching the limit of what you can do on a flat telly screen. The next big leap will be consoles that work with those 3D TVs, or full on Ghost in the Shell / Matrix stylee plug-a-cable-in-your-head-VR.

[carlcarlson]

having never played a wii I can't really back this up, but it seems to me that their control scheme is a big step forward. being able to play a fps and just point at something to shoot it, or swinging the remote to hit a golf ball sounds like quite the improvement in my opinion.

[7th lutz]

The wii control scheme is different then anything else from other game console generations. It offers a different experience for some games.

[Trebuken]

The biggest changes have been in textures and some of the effects such as fog, transparency, and water reflection. Lighting has improved as well.

I think the biggest advance we will see from this generation will be the physics. More lifelike motion from objects should develope through the generations lifecycle.

The diversoty of control schemes is a big deal; and for me HD gaming has blossomed, but you need have the HDTV for it.

[FantasiaWHT]

I'd just be happy to see a character wearing a cape (or any clothing, really) that actually looks right. Capes never come close to interacting realistically with the movement of the character, the character's other clothing, sheathed swords, etc.

[Haoie]

You know what's hit the wall in terms of improvement? Sound/music.

[FantasiaWHT]

You know what's hit the wall in terms of improvement? Sound/music.

Wait, you mean that they aren't going to come out with a surround-sound system for consoles that has 360 speakers, one for each degree? Man... I'm so bummed out now.

[BHvrd]

I think we are on the threshold of two possible outcomes for gaming.

Virtual Reality or awesome Retro Gaming.

It's getting to the point where realism has to become more real or cinematic to be enjoyable, otherwise the tried and true formula's still stand strong.

Personally i'm pulling more for the retro side of things. Some outrageous awesome 2-D gameplay would rock in my books, or any famous formula enhanced.

I say take the old tried and true formula's and enhance the hell outta them! I think that would be more enjoyable for the time being rather than virtual reality as I don't think we are quite there yet.

Sure they should push the limits and do the most they can, but it's a time for gaming to return to its roots a bit and I feel this will be the generation it happens in, what with virtual arcades and all.

If they do it right it could be very exciting.

Super Stardust HD on ps3 is a prime example, and one of the games that has got me thinking this way. You can tell this game was programmed by some very intellegent people.

[Chris]

Well, any advance counts as something, true...but I mean will it be something that actually really matters to gamers? For real? We seem to have hit a plateau with both arcade and home gaming.

Just look at the Wii phenomenon. If it weren't for Nintendo, I'd agree with you. The last generation was pretty boring imo, but the first time playing Wii Sports was genuinely fresh and exciting.

[Cryomancer]

Xbox360 will have a headset attachment soon that lets you smell your games.

Sales of fap games will rise to creepy new levels.

[Aswald]

I thought about this post again Saturday, when I read about the techno-hysteria over the Apple I-phone.

Quite frankly, we seem to be becoming a society so obsessed with the latestandcoolesttechnology, that it doesn't really whether or not it's really any actual use.

Look- it took at least several years for the remarkable games of the Atari 2600 to appear. Who, in 1977 or even 1979, would have believed that Robot Tank or Solaris was possible?

Look at the sort of games Opcode is programming for the ColecoVision.

It can take many moons for a console's abilities to finally, truly, reach its limit. So just how the hell is that going to happen after just two years?

It also seems as if the companies are telling the consumer what he wants, more than anything else.

[BHvrd]

I thought about this post again Saturday, when I read about the techno-hysteria over the Apple I-phone.

Quite frankly, we seem to be becoming a society so obsessed with the latestandcoolesttechnology, that it doesn't really whether or not it's really any actual use.

Look- it took at least several years for the remarkable games of the Atari 2600 to appear. Who, in 1977 or even 1979, would have believed that Robot Tank or Solaris was possible?

Look at the sort of games Opcode is programming for the ColecoVision.

It can take many moons for a console's abilities to finally, truly, reach its limit. So just how the hell is that going to happen after just two years?

It also seems as if the companies are telling the consumer what he wants, more than anything else.

I agree with, and understand where you are coming from 100%.

Hype seems to sell things before people really know, what will be availiable, or the support involved, or what the hell they are even actually going to use it for in a practical situation.

I quarantee everyone who buys an I-phone is gonna use it.....as a phone, and not much more. It's just not practical for everyday use for the everyday joe. It's a good device for business people, but people are just eating it up without thinking what they are even going to use it for.

As far as consoles go this is why I chose ps3, they have a ten year strategy, and I can see alot of things I want for and out of it down the road.

People don't seem to think long term when buying technology nowadays, and I agree that it's what drives the hardware that is important, not the hardware itself, and we all know what drives hardware the best "users". Give users power and the ability to get what they want when they want it. Not what you tell them they can have from a selection of predetermined content.

Open architecture devices is what I want. I want to make and share things, and this is what supports the best of technologies "community".

Latest and greatest my ass.

[Chris]

Hype seems to sell things before people really know, what will be availiable, or the support involved, or what the hell they are even actually going to use it for in a practical situation.

I quarantee everyone who buys an I-phone is gonna use it.....as a phone, and not much more. It's just not practical for everyday use for the everyday joe. It's a good device for business people, but people are just eating it up without thinking what they are even going to use it for.

As far as consoles go this is why I chose ps3, they have a ten year strategy, and I can see alot of things I want for and out of it down the road.
.

Seems to me like you bought in the hype, buying a console for games that aren't out yet. A "10 year strategy"? So you don't really know what will be available nor the support involved..
Looking at the sales figures it would've been more reasonable to buy a Wii, except you really wanted to buy a Blue-Ray player.
Could very well happen that Sony falls from first to last position in this generation.

[Anthony1]

We're reaching the limit of what you can do on a flat telly screen. The next big leap will be consoles that work with those 3D TVs, or full on Ghost in the Shell / Matrix stylee plug-a-cable-in-your-head-VR.

Ok, first off, sorry to bang on your take CosmicMonkey, but I gotta do it, cause......


I totally disagree with this. Forget all about High Definition and component cables and HDMI for a second. Just think about broadcast television. I'm talking television from the 1970's. The visuals of broadcast TV from the 1970's make modern games look like the Atari 2600. I don't care if you have a system that can only output in RF. If it could generate real time visuals that look as good as broadcast TV from the 1970's, we would be blown out the fucking water. So forget about any limits of what our flat telly screens can do. We are so far away from the limits of what our screens can do, it's not even funny. Think of a cheesy TV show from the 1970's like Bionic Man or S.W.A.T. Now, imagine watching an episode of S.W.A.T. on one TV, and then watching a video game on a TV right next to it, and the visuals being virtually indistinguishable..... Can you imagine that? I mean come on. We are so fucking far away from pushing our current technology even up to 1960's or 1970's broadcast TV levels, much less current day TV or Movie levels. Pop in Toy Story on DVD on your regular flat screen telly. How far are we away from controlling an interactive version of that? Very fucking far away. And all that (a movie like Toy Story) can be done on a regular ass TV from the 1980's. You can watch Toy Story on VHS, on a crappy TV from the early 1980's or even the late 70's and we are so fucking far away from controlling a pixel perfect interactive version of that.

So please don't use the excuse that we've caught up with the display limits of our current televisons, because we aren't even close. Not by a fucking longshot.

[djsquarewave]

We're reaching the limit of what you can do on a flat telly screen. The next big leap will be consoles that work with those 3D TVs, or full on Ghost in the Shell / Matrix stylee plug-a-cable-in-your-head-VR.
This is the future, wholly and truly. I can't wait!

...

Incremental graphics upgrades, for all the tech nerd and fanboy gushing, really are nigh meaningless from a gameplay standpoint nowadays. We can already have hundreds of enemies on-screen at once with current hardware (Dead Rising maintenence tunnels! Also Warhawk, I hear.) which is one of the few things that couldn't be done with previous hardware that would actually affect gameplay. Incredibly huge open maps are already doable. Advanced physics, atmospheric lighting, all this stuff is getting to the point where further improvements will amount to a hill of beans. Increased draw distance and resolution will soon become moot when it's representing things too minute for the human eye to percieve.

Really, though. Wake me up when someone figures out how to give a game a compelling story.

[Alison DeMeyer]

Nothing is ever new, it just gets re-invented.

[Chris]

We are so fucking far away from pushing our current technology even up to 1960's or 1970's broadcast TV levels, much less current day TV or Movie levels. Pop in Toy Story on DVD on your regular flat screen telly. How far are we away from controlling an interactive version of that? Very fucking far away. And all that (a movie like Toy Story) can be done on a regular ass TV from the 1980's. You can watch Toy Story on VHS, on a crappy TV from the early 1980's or even the late 70's and we are so fucking far away from controlling a pixel perfect interactive version of that.


I disagree, we're not far from photorealism. I'd say maybe two or three console generations (differs from genre to genre of course).
And we're talking about games here, not movies. Low resolution in films is more acceptable, but for games, where accuracy and as you said "pixel perfect interaction" matters, it's good to be able to better distinguish those pixels.
The thing I hate the most about Perfect Dark's multiplayer was that everything was so muddy and tiny and that you couldn't see anything clearly.
HD is extremely beneficial for splitscreen multiplayer.


Really, though. Wake me up when someone figures out how to give a game a compelling story.
Pls define your definition of a "compelling story" regarding videogame narratives.
Not that videogames need narratives at all, but I agree that only few games that tried it got it right, but imo for example Zelda: Link's Awakening, Shadow of the Colossus and System Shock 2 were admirable achievements.



Advanced physics,
That together with input/output devices is what will change most dramatically in the next few generations. As said, the visual quality can't go beyond photorealism, so we'll finally see gameworlds that aren't only cool to look at, but also to interact with.
I still wait for more environmental interaction, take for example Oblivion, where you can wipe out dozens of people at once with your mighty spells, but can't even scratch a door.

You might also be able to feel the environment (http://crave.cnet.com/8301-1_105-9736615-1.html) and things like buttons might dissappear alltogether (http://www.gizmag.com/go/1148/), the Wiimote is just the beginning.

There's a lot of untapped potential.

[BydoEmpire]

I've never been a big online gamer (and I still don't play online head-to-head stuff much at all), but I think the big thing this generation across all three systems is the online functionality: Downloadable games. Online high score competitions. Live's many features. Yeah, there was online gaming in prior generations, but it wasn't as fully fleshed out or as well done as this time around. Perhaps it's an incremental step in some ways, but in other ways it's a real leap. To me, the reason I wanted a 360 wasn't any of the retail games (though there are a bunch I wanted to play) it was being able to play w/ my friends, download XBLA games, demos, trailers and all the live/marketplace stuff. The Wii's motion controller - even if not yet fully realized - is definitely a leap.

[Anthony1]

I disagree, we're not far from photorealism. I'd say maybe two or three console generations (differs from genre to genre of course).



2 or 3 generations to me is pretty damn far away. I would personally say that we are at least 3 generations away, and generations are typically 6 years or so, which means that in another 20 years we might be able to actually have an interactive version of something like the Bionic Man, which would look absolutely indistinguishable from the live action version. And considering I can watch the Bionic Man on an old wood grained color TV from the late 1970's, and it looks perfectly good on there, then do we really need to go so far beyond our current TV technology? I don't think so. Everybody keeps bringing up the point that we are soon going to hit a wall with our current display technology, but to me that's just a lazy excuse and a cop out. Until I can play a pixel perfect, absolutely indistinguishable from the real TV show, Lost, or 24, then we haven't even come close. So let's drop the tired excuse that it has anything at all to do with our display technology. Maybe in 20 years we can actually think about our display technologies holding us back, but they sure as hell aren't right now.

[jdc]

Well, we've seen a fair bit of rehash as far as fresh ideas for games is concerned. That's why I bought a Wii. I'm playing the same old games over again.....but there's a reason why I can't seem to stop playing "the same old" Tiger Woods on the Wii....and a reason why I can't be bothered to play "the same old" Tiger Woods on the 360. The Wii gives me a new way to play what I've seen before. What would be nice is to see the Wii pumping out PS3 graphics. That would be heaven.

[Flack]

What will they offer, do you think? Anything truly NEW, anything that absolutely couldn't be done now?

I think in two or three years you are going to start seeing lots and lots of downloadable games. I think they're simply testing the waters right now and getting the technology in place. I know this is a site full of collectors and the thought of downloading virtual copies of a game sends a chill up many people's spines, but when looking at the "average" gamer I think a lot of them would rather spend $30 on a downloaded copy of a game vs. $60 on a copy from the store.

I know the Phantom got kicked around quite a bit but it wouldn't surprise me if more games begin becoming available as downloads at a discount, and eventually moving to a download-favored marketplace. When the 360 came out 300 gig drives were expensive; today I saw an ad for 500 gig for $99. As hard drive prices continue to drop I don't think it's out of the question that the next generation of systems may come with 1tb drives (or bigger); at that point, what's stopping them from installing every game onto a hard drive and letting them play that way?

[Anthony1]

What would be nice is to see the Wii pumping out PS3 graphics. That would be heaven.

Basically, what you're saying is, that you wish the Playstation 3 or Xbox 360 had a wand like controller, like the Wii does. I couldn't agree more. I think Sony made a horrible mistake by putting motion sensing technology in a traditional style controller than you hold with two hands. Had Sony went the whole 9 yards, and copied the Wii mote fully, including it's one handed wand type design, I think the PS3 would be in a vastly better position than it's in. Imagine playing Virtua Tennis 3 or MLB 2K7 with a one handed wand controller, but while enjoying PS3 quality visuals. I think that would be amazing. If anybody is going to do a motion control controller, then they really need to make it a one handed device. Nintendo has proved that a one handed motion controlling device makes sense, and Sony has proved that putting motion controls into a traditional two handed control pad makes no sense at all.

[Chris]

2 or 3 generations to me is pretty damn far away. I would personally say that we are at least 3 generations away, and generations are typically 6 years or so, which means that in another 20 years we might be able to actually have an interactive version of something like the Bionic Man, which would look absolutely indistinguishable from the live action version. And considering I can watch the Bionic Man on an old wood grained color TV from the late 1970's, and it looks perfectly good on there, then do we really need to go so far beyond our current TV technology?


It depends.. if you're asking Microsoft, it's more like 4 years.
I guess we'll be there in a decade, just compare games from 1997 with new ones.
And if Xbox360 or PS3 developers would optimize their games for old CRT TV resolutions, I guess we'd already have photo-realism.

But what are you so upset about? Don't want do invest in an HD TV? I don't have one and I'm not going to buy one in the next few years, but as said, the higher definitions are way more beneficial for videogames than for your old movies.

But I do agree that they should concentrate more on input instead of output devices (like the Wii does).

[OatBob]

I'm quite content with the wireless controllers and vertical orientation of all the new systems. They now have a smaller footprint leaving more horizontal room on the shelf. For wireless stuff, I'm just glad I can sit further than a meter from my game system (and subsequently my tele) This is especially important as everyone seems to be getting large HD televisions that you can see clearer images from more reasonable distances.

[smork]

...I think a lot of them would rather spend $30 on a downloaded copy of a game vs. $60 on a copy from the store.

I think that would be true were it the case that publishers would drop their prices on AAA titles so much -- but company logic tells us publishers want to move to digital distribution as a means of saving money (getting rid of the cost of printing/pressing/distributing/storing games) and addressing piracy concerns. Typically when a company makes these sorts of cost-saving moves most of the money goes to the company's bottom line, not to the consumer's pockets. Usually the only reason you see price cuts on products is to be more competitive with other companies pricing strategies.

What I am afraid of (well, i'm afraid of many things with digital distribution) is prices won't decrease much at all -- and in fact prices for older product might stay higher for longer. I think price cuts on less-popular games happen now largely because retailers need to be persuaded to keep product on shelf that's not selling as well, hence make it available at a more attractive price point in a drive to boost sales. As everything is stored and distributed digitally in the newer model there's far less of an incentive to drop prices.

I would be surprised to see fully digitally-distributed AAA titles to sell for more than $10 less than they do now. Look at the case of CDs when they first were released. Prices didn't go down at all when manufacturing costs plummeted. Increaded profits never translated to reduced consumer prices -- in fact record lables once sued Best Buy for pricing CDs too cheaply!

I personally wouldn't buy a $60 game digitally unless I can burn a copy of the game for myself that will ALWAYS work in case of publisher/distributor failure, etc. How much will it suck when you buy a digital title from a third-party publisher, they go out of business, and you need to replace your hard drive?

[hbkprm]

we just have to move fwd

[Anthony1]

But what are you so upset about? Don't want do invest in an HD TV? I don't have one and I'm not going to buy one in the next few years, but as said, the higher definitions are way more beneficial for videogames than for your old movies.


I'm not upset about it, I have 3 HDTV's in my house. I'm definitely not upset about High Definition. It's just that I keep hearing this theory over and over again (in magazines and on websites, etc), that we are eventually going to run up against the limitations of our current display technology, and I say that's total bullshit. We haven't even come close to the limitations of the display technology of the late 70's early 80's, much less our current state of the art HDTV's. So basically, what I'm trying to say is, our displays aren't to blame for the fact that alot of us are a bit underwhelmed by the so called "Next-Gen" that we are seeing.

I said this awhile back, I remember when I first rented the GRAW 1 for Xbox 360, when it debuted in like March of 2006. When I first popped that disk in my 360, and I saw the intro to the game, I actually thought that we would be playing games that looked like that. So to say that I'm dissapointed with what we actually got from a next-gen standpoint, I would say that's an understatement. I'm very dissapointed. I really thought that I would be playing an interactive version of the opening cinema of the first GRAW. For those that aren't familar with the opening cinema for the first GRAW, think back to the Killzone 2 Trailer at e3 2005. Basically the same thing. I guess I was really naive to think that I would actually be playing an interactive version of that in this generation.