What's next? [Archive] - Retrogaming Roundtable

View Full Version : What's next?

Aswald

05-23-2008, 04:44 PM

8-bitNesMan

05-23-2008, 04:48 PM

Run video game software, maybe?

Gapporin

05-23-2008, 06:18 PM

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88075
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102729

Is it that time of the year again?

BHvrd

05-23-2008, 06:29 PM

Downloadable pants.

Berserker

05-23-2008, 06:43 PM

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88075
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102729

Is it that time of the year again?

Good eye. So what's the deal, Aswald? Are you trying to see how opinions change over the years?

My own opinion is that we should stop scrutinizing consoles and put the focus back where it belongs, on the games. Instead of looking at hardware stats, how many quadrillions of triangles can be pushed per millisecond, simply ask this question -- Are there a significant amount of games that look fun to you that justify paying X price for the console? If so, buy. If not, wait.

gum_drops

05-23-2008, 07:02 PM

I noticed enough of a jump to warrant purchasing a playstation 3. The ability to play HD games/multimedia on my flatescreen was worth it.

FantasiaWHT

05-23-2008, 07:22 PM

RadiantSvgun

05-23-2008, 07:23 PM

Quite frankly, I just don't see much difference between the current console generation and the last. Certainly nothing really worth "moving up" for.

If there is an X-Box 720 and a Playstation 4, what will they do? In a practical sense?

I already own all the new systems, and honestly I can understand your argument. I have yet to be "wowed" at any of the new systems yet. I play my Duo, X-eye, and ps2 more than anything.

They all have some cool stuff, but I'm waiting for that "holy crap" game to show up on the new consoles.

Lothars

05-23-2008, 07:54 PM

I already own all the new systems, and honestly I can understand your argument. I have yet to be "wowed" at any of the new systems yet. I play my Duo, X-eye, and ps2 more than anything.

They all have some cool stuff, but I'm waiting for that "holy crap" game to show up on the new consoles.

Honestly I don't understand this argument at all, especially with some of the games that are released such as Dead Rising, Gears of War, Oblivion or even GTA IV but there's definitely games that push ahead the generation in general.

Those are all games that make me just see why the ps3 and 360 is worth going for. but It's definitely a leap forward from the previous generation.

NytroSkull7

05-23-2008, 09:36 PM

I'm kinda in the hopes that video games will take a year or two before they move foward again. I need a chance to catch up!

retroman

05-23-2008, 11:32 PM

play the ps2 version of MLB The Show, and then play the ps3 version, and then ask me what the differnce is. If u say none, i will tell u to get your eyes check. Hell ya their is a big dif in the last gen and this gen. Just not as big as the ps1 to ps2 jump.

G-Boobie

05-24-2008, 01:38 AM

I agree with OP - ESPECIALLY if you don't have an HD-TV, there is only an minimal improvement in graphics.

I agree with the 'especially' portion of your statement: SD displayed 'new-gen' looks about as good as 'last gen'. But play Virtua Fighter 5, Bioshock, Call of Duty 4, Gears of War, etc. etc. etc on a decent HD TV.... If you don't notice a huge difference, then quite frankly, you're nuts.

Nophix

05-24-2008, 10:34 AM

There is a significant difference between the 2, but you have to be using an HDTV and the proper cables to see it. I didn't think the 360 was anything real special until I saw it on an HDTV. I had the Wii, hooked up to our old 27" TV(I mean OLD), via old school a/v cables. I didn't think it was anything better than the gamecube.

However, we bought a 32" LCD this year, and WOW! The Wii looks amazing! I bought the component cables for it, and what a difference!

So, then, not long ago I was offered a good deal on a 360 from a friend, and it had a lot of the games I've been itching to play. So, I bought it, and hooked it up with the HD cables(component), and let me tell you, playing Forza 2 was mindblowing!

Garry Silljo

05-24-2008, 10:58 AM

zektor

05-24-2008, 11:10 AM

I see many differences between the last era of consoles and this one. The innovation of the Wii and a new way to control the game is one. DLC is another. Games becoming more immense due to innovations in storage (PS3) is yet another. Graphic improvements are not the only improvements over time. Today's consoles are definitely more advanced than last generation...and the next set of consoles will be more advanced than this one. If they were not, they wouldn't sell.

Rob2600

05-24-2008, 08:15 PM

I see many differences between the last era of consoles and this one. ... Games becoming more immense due to innovations in storage (PS3)

I disagree. Video games from the 1980s, like The Legend of Zelda (1986), Metroid (1986), Metal Gear (1987), and Super Mario Bros. 3 (1988), are just as long as 50 GB video games from today.

Poofta!

05-24-2008, 08:22 PM

Quite frankly, I just don't see much difference between the current console generation and the last. Certainly nothing really worth "moving up" for.

If there is an X-Box 720 and a Playstation 4, what will they do? In a practical sense?

YOURE KIDDING. im sorry, but if you say you dont see a difference between current gen and last, you are either trolling, lying or are blind.

ill also take the possibility that youre running both consoles on a 21" old CRT tv in 480i, but even then, there is some improvement.

EDIT:

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88075
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102729

Is it that time of the year again?

ok, obvious troll is obvious.
no difference between ps1 to ps2 to ps3 ?
yeah ok...

Rob2600

05-24-2008, 08:49 PM

if you say you dont see a difference between current gen and last, you are either trolling, lying or are blind.

I think what Aswald meant is that what's the point in spending $300 to $600 on an Xbox 360 or a PlayStation 3 when they don't really do anything different than the PlayStation 2. They all have the same exact controllers and the same exact types of games. Rock Band, Guitar Hero III, and a ton of role-playing games, first-person shooters, violent crime games, and fighting games are already out on the PlayStation 2. What does the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 offer that's so different?

Yes, there's online multiplayer and HD graphics, but the underlying game playing experience hasn't changed from the PlayStation 2 (last generation) to the Xbox 360 and the PlayStation 3 (current generation). Is that worth $300 to $600?

I think that's what he meant.

From this (http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88075) thread:

Personally I think we're entering the era of fluff. Basically we're being asked to upgrade for the sake of upgrading Sony & Microsoft's wallets. With the exception of possibly the DS and the Wii which actually changes the way we play I haven't seen any games announced that are anything more than "the same old same old" just with a little prettier graphics.

I agree with Griking. I like how Nintendo doesn't care about graphics, to some extent. Microsoft and Sony on the other hand, seem to be pushing graphics as something that needs upgrading, when I think we are at the point where we don't need to.

I agree with both of you.

Poofta!

05-24-2008, 09:20 PM

ok, sure the genres and concepts stay the same, but they have pretty much been the same since video games' incarnation.

graphics and processing power help us evolve these concepts. a game like GH wasnt possible on the snes. mario wasnt possible on the atari and mass effect/gears of war wasnt possible on the ps2/xbox. and racing/driving games always want more graphics and more processing power -- this makes the games better.

graphics and processing power bring in realism and detail. look at the detail between gta1(ps1) gta3(ps2) and gta4(ps3) while all same concepts, the detail and experience is completely different thanks to the advances in tech.

graphics and physics all help you become more involved in the story, it helps critical problem solving (if the game world is more similar to the real one) and offers and overall more enjoyable and complete experience when the difference between our world and the game worlds are marred.

so while sure, you may not see the benefit of that ~400 dollar purchase, i do. the gta games on the ps2 were unplayable for me, while gta4 on the 360 is amazing.

G-Boobie

05-25-2008, 01:56 AM

Bah. You people aren't complaining that the new generation of consoles aren't enough of a jump to spend money on: you're arguing that game developers need to shake things up. It's not Microsoft and Sony's fault that developers play it safe(except of course when they as developers play it safe. Then you can hate away.)

The irrefutable advances of the 'new-gen' tech are graphics(as per usual), on screen objects/draw distance and A.I., improved physics, and online connectivity. Maybe it isn't as HUGE a jump as the move from 2D to 3D, but whatever. You go ahead and think that.

I guess it comes down to preference, then: I personally think that games like Bioshock, Crackdown, Dead Rising, and Call of Duty 4 are far and away evidence that the new-gen has so far lived up to the hype. Just of course my opinion.

coreys429

05-25-2008, 02:23 AM

Downloadable pants.

I am still waiting for my automatic laces from Nike and the blow dry jacket.

otaku

05-25-2008, 02:44 AM

I think this gen is plenty different from the last. 360 is a pretty nice step up visually from my xbox (not only on a normal tv but even more so on an hdtv) then theres DLC (I spend way to much money on DLC!!) and downloadable games and the wii is pretty innovative.

jcalder8

05-25-2008, 02:46 AM

I think what Aswald meant is that what's the point in spending $300 to $600 on an Xbox 360 or a PlayStation 3 when they don't really do anything different than the PlayStation 2. They all have the same exact controllers and the same exact types of games. Rock Band, Guitar Hero III, and a ton of role-playing games, first-person shooters, violent crime games, and fighting games are already out on the PlayStation 2. What does the Xbox 360 and PlayStation 3 offer that's so different?
If you look at the types of games they really haven't done anything different since the PS and N64. We had FPS, violent crime games and fighting games on those as well.

If there needs to be new styles of games to warrant buying a new system then no one should have bought the PS2, Gamecube or Xbox either.

TheDomesticInstitution

05-25-2008, 09:10 AM

The irrefutable advances of the 'new-gen' tech are graphics(as per usual), on screen objects/draw distance and A.I., improved physics, and online connectivity. Maybe it isn't as HUGE a jump as the move from 2D to 3D, but whatever. You go ahead and think that.

I guess it comes down to preference, then: I personally think that games like Bioshock, Crackdown, Dead Rising, and Call of Duty 4 are far and away evidence that the new-gen has so far lived up to the hype. Just of course my opinion.

I agree with you man. After playing GTAIV and then going back and playing San Andreas (both on HDTVs) I can say that IV is a pretty big leap ahead graphically and the amount of detail in the game. This game is in no way possible on the previous generation consoles. To me it's every bit as big a jump as it was from the PS1 to the PS2.

I am still waiting for my automatic laces from Nike and the blow dry jacket.

What about Mr. Fusion to power your car?

I think this gen is plenty different from the last. 360 is a pretty nice step up visually from my xbox (not only on a normal tv but even more so on an hdtv) then theres DLC (I spend way to much money on DLC!!) and downloadable games and the wii is pretty innovative.

While the 360 and PS3 are big leaps forward in graphics and processing power- the controller and core audience hasn't changed much from the last generation. And while the Wii isn't making leaps forward as as far as processing power and graphics are concerned... it has changed the way the game has controlled and opens up a whole new market of gamers.

Rob2600

05-25-2008, 10:21 AM

the wii is pretty innovative.

You're right. It's funny how the cheapest console is also the most fresh, fun, and innovative. :)

Garry Silljo

05-25-2008, 12:37 PM

a game like GH wasnt possible on the snes.

I really don't see why not.

Graham Mitchell

05-25-2008, 01:29 PM

I disagree. Video games from the 1980s, like The Legend of Zelda (1986), Metroid (1986), Metal Gear (1987), and Super Mario Bros. 3 (1988), are just as long as 50 GB video games from today.

Ummmm....

It took me 10 hours to do one world in Mass Effect.

The water temple alone in Twilight Princess took about 6 hours (not in one sitting.) By the time I finished Twilight Princess I had clocked in over 100 hours. Now, I went for almost everything, and I probably kind of sucked at it and wandered around wasting time for a certain percentage of that, but I remember getting NES games that I'd never played before on the morning of my birthday as a kid, and having them beaten by dinner.

Also, Rob, you seem to be a big proponent of the Wii. I was really into mine when I got it. I thought the control scheme and the virtual console were brilliant, refreshing ideas. Plus, at launch, some really good games came out...or at least one really good game came out (Zelda.) But honestly, since finishing Zelda, nothing's really grabbed me. I really like Kororinpa (which is kind of unique) and Super Mario Galaxy and Metroid, but these games are nothing new, just the same old stuff we get every 3 years or so with the Wiimote controls tacked-on. I don't feel I'm getting a whole lot out of playing them and so they don't get much use. And don't even get me started on virtual console. So much potential there, but most of what they release is shit. (Although, I've LOVED Sin and Punishment, and a few of the other classics that were released. Nothing's 100%.)

However, I bought my self a 360 for Christmas because Bioshock looked intriguing. Boy was it ever. I've also got Mass Effect which is one of the deepest console games I've ever seen. I simply can't fathom the amount of stuff they're cramming into some of these 360 games. I think that, in terms of software, things really are moving forward on the 360 in areas other than graphics. The biggest thing I notice is that the machines are capable of managing AI better, and whole worlds are being created that act independently of you, but that you can interact with in whatever ways you choose. This makes for much less linearity in some games that take advantage of this. Plus, thanks to downloadable content and great online service means I can play some classic arcade games or console games against others any time I want (like Track and Field or SFII Turbo). Online play isn't limited to just Halo anymore. To me, this is a huge step forward.

And I don't want to start a big rant about the Wii software library as it's been done to death. I will say that I honestly can't understand how people who've played games heavily since the early 80s can keep playing Wii sports for more than a month. If you just got your wii, don't be surprised if you find it collecting dust in a couple months (unless you have a girlfiend or kids.)

Just my opinion guys. I was skeptical, too. I couldn't have given a shit about graphical upgrades and what not. I only got a 360 because Bioshock seemed intriguing, and it's turned out to be the best, most complete console I've ever purchased. I just hope the fucker doesn't red ring on my any time soon.

j_factor

05-25-2008, 02:30 PM

It seems to me like the leap in graphics that PS3/360 provide doesn't have as much utility as previous jumps. The real usefulness is when it comes to games with large, seamless, detailed environments, such as Crackdown and GTA4 and etc. But only certain styles of games demand that stuff, and only a relatively small number of them will trickle out in a year, due to the budget and time requirements these games have. I haven't been too impressed by other improvements, such as A.I., which people have been hyping for years and years. Other games look nicer, but don't tangibly benefit from their graphics. The Ratchet & Clank game for PS3 is gorgeous to look at, but it wouldn't have hurt the gameplay experience if it had to be in 480p. And I really don't give a damn about bloom lighting or whatever else is the latest graphical buzzphrase.

Shouldn't we be beyond ooh-ing and ahh-ing at high-powered graphical effects? Maybe I'm just old, cynical, and jaded, but I really don't care anymore.

Poofta!

05-25-2008, 05:31 PM

I really don't see why not.

wow i am stupified by this response.

you REALLY cannot see why Guitar Hero wasnt possible on the super nintendo?

how about:
cart size, sound processor, graphics???

dude seriously.

Gapporin

05-25-2008, 05:44 PM

Rob2600

05-25-2008, 06:01 PM

you REALLY cannot see why Guitar Hero wasnt possible on the super nintendo?

how about:
cart size, sound processor, graphics???

dude seriously.

Guitar Hero for the SNES wouldn't look or sound like the current versions, but it'd be the same style of game: push buttons on a guitar-shaped controller to the beat of MIDI music.

DDR could also be done on the SNES, but again, it wouldn't look or sound exactly like the current versions. For a primitive example, see Dance Aerobics for the NES, which was released in Japan in 1987, 11 years before DDR.

Garry Silljo

05-25-2008, 06:18 PM

wow i am stupified by this response.

you REALLY cannot see why Guitar Hero wasnt possible on the super nintendo?

how about:
cart size, sound processor, graphics???

dude seriously.

People beat me to the response, but yes I really can't see why not. Would it be exactly the same quality? Of course not, the graphics would be the same 16 bit fair as the other games on the system and the music would obviously be a lower quality. The gameplay however is so basic it could be done on ANY system that has enough buttons for it. Are you seriously telling me the SNES couldn't scroll a few colors down the screen and register when or if you hit them? Of course it could. They could've made the guitar and everything. Also since the game is about guitar and not vocals, stripping the music down wouldn't be innapropriate.

Poofta!

05-25-2008, 06:57 PM

People beat me to the response, but yes I really can't see why not. Would it be exactly the same quality? Of course not, the graphics would be the same 16 bit fair as the other games on the system and the music would obviously be a lower quality. The gameplay however is so basic it could be done on ANY system that has enough buttons for it. Are you seriously telling me the SNES couldn't scroll a few colors down the screen and register when or if you hit them? Of course it could. They could've made the guitar and everything. Also since the game is about guitar and not vocals, stripping the music down wouldn't be innapropriate.

but the graphics and complexity is part of hte charm. i mean shit, there is a ff7 for nes conversion, what the hell is hte point of it? its not fun...

just cause you can do something, doesnt mean you should.
so yes, technically, a push-buttons-to-the-midi game can be made, will it suck? probably.
there is no way you can make the game of the same quality, and that is what the whole thread is about, the next gen of consoles brings in new opportunities for better, more enjoyable software.

so please, stay away from silly technicalities.

j_factor

05-25-2008, 06:58 PM

Even if you insist on having the full music, Guitar Hero easily could've been done on Turbo CD or something.

Garry Silljo

05-25-2008, 07:15 PM

but the graphics and complexity is part of hte charm.

When i play this game I don't even see the graphics or anything going on in the background or on the sides. I concentrate on the scroll and it's so simple I can see it done anywhere. I'd be just as happy playing that game on any system.

suckerpunch5

05-25-2008, 07:19 PM

http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=88075
http://www.digitpress.com/forum/showthread.php?t=102729

Is it that time of the year again?

Hilarious! Exactly the same post, once a year. How in the world did you notice that?

FantasiaWHT

05-26-2008, 09:45 AM

When i play this game I don't even see the graphics or anything going on in the background or on the sides. I concentrate on the scroll and it's so simple I can see it done anywhere. I'd be just as happy playing that game on any system.

QFT. I never notice what else is going on on the screen except the scrolling colors. I'm in for "could have been done and be just as fun on the SNES"

Aswald

05-28-2008, 01:00 PM

Good eye. So what's the deal, Aswald? Are you trying to see how opinions change over the years?

My own opinion is that we should stop scrutinizing consoles and put the focus back where it belongs, on the games. Instead of looking at hardware stats, how many quadrillions of triangles can be pushed per millisecond, simply ask this question -- Are there a significant amount of games that look fun to you that justify paying X price for the console? If so, buy. If not, wait.

I ask yearly because new consoles seem to be announced or released that often. How many have we gone through in the past ten years?

It just doesn't seem as though new consoles are that big an improvement. The jump from the 2600 to the CV was obvious. The NES era was an improvement, but not THAT much- it simply resurrected the industry, and so was necessary.

As for the 16-Bit era- sure, the games LOOKED and SOUNDED much better, but the genres for the most part were the same.

Then we hit the 32-Bit era, and there we saw something new, starting with Mario 64. Here we got into games that previous generations couldn't really do.

After that, though- we seem to hit a plateau. Again, maybe the looks and sounds were somewhat better, but beyond that- what? I mean in any practical sense.

I'm surprised you don't hear more about on-line. If two Commodore-64s could communicate with each other over what would be known as the Internet, why not two Playstations, more easily? The Internet itself is there, as are the lines of communication.

carlcarlson

05-28-2008, 02:19 PM

You're right. It's funny how the cheapest console is also the most innovative but ultimately the most empty. :)

fixed.

I see what you are all saying, but in the end we are here because we enjoy video games, and really, who here can honestly say they won't be buying these systems at some point within the next few years? I can agree that they may not warrant hundreds of dollars to upgrade, but they definitely do bring new and beautiful things to the table.

j_factor

05-28-2008, 02:36 PM

I see what you are all saying, but in the end we are here because we enjoy video games, and really, who here can honestly say they won't be buying these systems at some point within the next few years? I can agree that they may not warrant hundreds of dollars to upgrade, but they definitely do bring new and beautiful things to the table.

I only buy systems for the games themselves, not for the upgrade. I didn't buy a Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube for the graphics or online play or anything, I bought them for the library of games that they offered.

carlcarlson

05-28-2008, 02:52 PM

I only buy systems for the games themselves, not for the upgrade. I didn't buy a Dreamcast, PS2, Xbox, and Gamecube for the graphics or online play or anything, I bought them for the library of games that they offered.

Right, that's what I meant. I don't see anyone here being willing to pass up all three of these libraries. I would guess most people on this forum will have all three systems within a few years (myself included). It will take some price-drops, but it will still happen.