My take on the 128 bit era of gaming

[ReaXan]

8d98484472


I have always been an pretty middle of the pack type gamer,I went through the 8,16,32,64 and now
the 128 bit age and even had my times were I would collect systems of the past to experience some
of the lost games I never got to play such as the Jaguar,3D0,Sega CD,Saturn,etc. and had alot of
memorable times with my Nintendo,Genesis,Playstation and Dreamcast as my main ones I played.
Well were I am trying to get at in this post is my disapointment with
the 128 bit age of gaming and how it could have been better in some aspects.


The 128 bit age started strong with the Sega putting out a revolutionary system in the Dreamcast which
I still think is the best system ever made that could have been.I enjoyed alot of Dreamcast titles
in the height of its success.Sega was ready to be the big cheese again and their system has the
programming friendliness that the Saturn lacked and had some good 3rd party developers to boot.

Well of course Playstation liked being on top and they knew they still had a large market of casual
gamers as well as hardcore gamers who stuck to the Playstation and we know the rest of the story.DVD
technolgy was fixing to hit mainstream and of course Sony would capitlize on it with the release of
the PS2 which include a DVD player as well as backward compatibility in the Playstation One which had
mainstream gamers in Dreamlands.The PS2 sold itself and Sega knew their less powerful Dreamcast
would take a bigger hit than expected,not to mention the upcoming release of Microsoft's X-Box and
the Nintendo Dolphin{Gamecube}.


So of course the PS2 came out and had 3rd party developers putting games out the frame,most of them
crap as most would expect at first until developers got a feel for the PS2's hardware.Dreamcast could
no longer give away their systems as the PS2 was already dominating before the X-Box or the Dolphin
came out.Sega had no choice but to throw in the towel on a great system that was overshadowed by
Sony's marketing genius which had overtaken Sega once again.Sega then decided to give up their dream
of console domination and started focusing on developing a strong software company again.

Not long after the Playstation 2 Phenom and the Dreamcast's early death Microsoft released their first
console system the X-Box with a graphic processor that was as powerful as computer 3-D cards at the time.
People who were disapointed with the PS2's slow start jumped on the Microsoft bandwagan and hoped
for the best.

Nintendo who used to be the heavyweight king with the NES and SNES who just had their first disapointment
in the N64 some years back which was always 2nd to the Playstation through the 32 Bit,64 bit years
decided to save what they considered the best for last and released
their small yet design but effective powerful machine the "Gamecube" which utilized Mini Disk
technology and had a very impressive graphic and cpu chip of its own rivalying the X-Box's.


So the War was on between PS2,X-Box and Gamecube,may the best system win......


PS2 soon struck Gold with their Grand Theft Auto Series and eventual release of Grand Theft Vice City
which was a much have for any game out there because of its easy yet extremly fun gameplay,they also
appeased their RPG gamers who floked to the Final Fantasy Series which was revolutionary in itself,as
well as alot of quality titles that made the PS2 sell even more units.


Microsoft wasnt going out with a fight though,they knew the only way to outdo Sony was to utilize the
X'Box strength in multiplayer gaming over the internet which spawned hit "Halo" which intised more
causual gamers to pick up an X-Box to experience the next generation in video gaming.


By Now Gamecube was still a distant 3rd and looked like they were the oddman out despite sporting
some impressive looking game's graphic wise.The kiddie marketing that haunted them with the N64
ported over to the Gamecube' early days as the Gamecube just simply didnt have enough quality games
or quanity for that matter,but we will get back to them later


Microsoft started turning up the Heat on PS2's empire in late 2003 with advertisments and cranking
out games at the rate of Sony


Sony then started to realize what the X-Box was stumbling upon and started making games to utilize their
recently release network adaptor and put full faith in their Final Fantasy Series and turned it into
a multiplayer event as Halo was for the X-Box,Sony also had their plans to revive old favorite Resident
Evil Series into a muliplayer game "OutBreak" which was a huge hit on their PSOne.

Now Gamecube then realized they were far behind in the race and decided instead of making one huge
move they would make some little ones to try to at least get to 2nd if they possible could,they slashed
the price of the Gamecube during the holiday season of 2003 and then started bringing back old ports
of gaming favorites such as the Zelda Series,Sonics Series and some of the Older Final Fantasy's to
get some of the old school gamers from the late 80's and early 90's to put faith in their system
enough to warrant it as a 2nd System if nothing else to go along with the PS2 and X-Box modern gaming.
They also released a broadband adaptor but few games utilize it.


So in conclusion its mid 2004 and the X-Box is catching up to the PS2 and it looks like the Nintendo is just trying
to break even if they can at this point.I have played all three systems and none of them in my opinion have enough
games I like to warrant buying them,I bought a gamecube once but tired of it after the Resident Evil series was the only
one I could enjoy and took it back for a refund to invest in systems I could burn games for and relive some lost games
I never got to play

[swlovinist]

....................................... O_O

[kai123]

Your last sentence had me the most concerned about burned games. So you only enjoy systems that you can get games for free on? Everyone knows that the Dreamcast was the most easily pirated system ever. Who needs modchips when I can just burn the game. I hope for the sake of all Sega fans that you at least supported the system by buying games for it.

[dbiersdorf]

It's Xbox, not X-Box, you would think after 3 years, people would know this by now. :roll:

[Daria]

It's Xbox, not X-Box, you would think after 3 years, people would know this by now. :roll:

Personally I like to call it XboX just because I think it looks cooler. 8-)

[Avenger]

Long Live The Dreamcast...and friggen hell man not only is that too long that no one will read it, its just a rehash of...everything...

[musical]

Was this an assignment for English Composition 101?

LOL ;)

MY OPINION: The "128-bit generation" is just like the 32/64-bit generation. Same games - better graphics. It's all been done before.

The same was true of the 16-bit generation - essentially just "upgrades" of the 8-bit games.

[EnemyZero]

yeah 128 has been the most dissapointing generation thus far with the exception of the dreamcast...the game industry has had me snoozing more and more since sega dropped off the console map.

[klausien]

The latest age of gaming can best be summed up as "boatloads of crap". Every generation of systems has had terrible games, but the balance is even further off right now. Too many interactive movies calling themselves RPGs, ultra-violence for the sake of ultra-violence, sports games, and a ridiculous glut of FPSs. Very sad.

[Nez]

-_-

[petewhitley]

I was under the impression that this (PS2, XBox, GameCube) was actually the 256-bit generation (as if it mattered or meant anything ...).

[Pedro Lambrini]

My view on 128 bit gaming - noone really knows (knew) what to do with all that extra grunt. FMV - done, 3d - done, CGI, done yadda, yadda, yadda. There are a few exceptions (namely Eternal Darkness - truly original, the broken controller bit was genius!) but all in all just souped up 16 and 32 bit games...roll on the Revolution! Now I'm going back to play my GBA!

[RCM]

I actually read an article by Steven Kent a couple years saying that the only 128 bit console is the PS2. Dreamcast is 64bit, Gamecube is 64 bit, and im unsure of the Xbox (it's not 128 bit though). I know the GBA is 32bit. Bits matter, but not as much as you might think.

THE ONE, THE ONLY- RCM

[thegreatescape]

and im unsure of the Xbox (it's not 128 bit though)


Im pretty sure its 32-bit, particularly since its driven by an intel cpu quite similar to the Pentium III (iirc).

My view on the current gen- its kinda unfortunate that developers now have the power to create any kind of game/world they want, but almost everything has been done before and they end up being lambasted as unorginal (particularly in these forums). I say enjoy the sexyness of the games and look at whats different about them, not whats the same.

My favourite part of current gen: im never held back by graphics in the game. I can see the track on the horizon of a race game, or an enemy sniper in a tower and i love it. :D

Oh yea, before i forget: orginal post/essay needs to be rewritten to make more sense ( no offence or anything) :P

[Azazel]

Your last sentence had me the most concerned about burned games. So you only enjoy systems that you can get games for free on? Everyone knows that the Dreamcast was the most easily pirated system ever. Who needs modchips when I can just burn the game. I hope for the sake of all Sega fans that you at least supported the system by buying games for it.

On the bright it also made it easy to port emulators to the DC and also to the X-Box later on.

[robotriot]

Yes, the Xbox is 32Bit, and it doesn't really matter what -bit CPU a console has, as the Xbox obviously is technically more advanced than the 64 and 128bit consoles :)

[bluberry]

IMO, I think this hasn't been that bad a generation. Then again, I mostly play action games, and so far, there have been a ton of great ones. Devil May Cry, Gunvalkyrie, Castlevania: Lament of Innocence, etc, etc. Aside from a few like GV, though, they DO seem to borrow from each other a lot; you can definitely feel DMC's influence in Ninja Gaiden or CV:LoI.

But then, of course, there are games like Chulip (http://ps2.ign.com/objects/482/482707.html) which are just so far out there... I mean, a kissing simulator? XD

[ReaXan]

The latest age of gaming can best be summed up as "boatloads of crap". Every generation of systems has had terrible games, but the balance is even further off right now. Too many interactive movies calling themselves RPGs, ultra-violence for the sake of ultra-violence, sports games, and a ridiculous glut of FPSs. Very sad.

Probably summed it better than i did with all my ranting LOL

[Flack]

Maybe it's my age, but this has probably been my least favorite generation of consoles (and really, it started with Playstation).

I liked games where I could quickly and easily figure out what I was supposed to be doing, and how to control my character. The more games advance, it seems I spend more and more time trying to figure out those two things, which is not where my enjoyment of gaming comes from.

[YoshiM]

I have to say this era in general has been pretty blah-zay. Oh there have been some bright shining gems out there and I do have an Xbox and a Gamecube but nothing overly interests me and what does most of the time is just average. Last gen I rented and played a lot more than this gen.

One of the major things is that nothing really "wow"ed me except Dreamcast. Seeing Soul Calibur fire up made my jaw hit the floor. NFL2K was another and it made my game-disliking father in law think I was watching a football tape or something.

[bluberry]

See, I find that the good games of this gen are pick up and play right now, but have layers of depth. It's easy to boot up Devil May Cry and hack and slash a few things, but it can take dozens of dozens of hours to really master the game. And some games have simple "ideas" that will take you time to learn, but once you do, you'll have a blast. See: Gunvalkyrie.

Then there are 50,000 button trial-and-error games like Splinter Cell that are as rotten and boring as Reindeer Games.

[lendelin]

You guys are just too pessimistic and over-critical. :)

The current games represent perfected gameplay of the 32/64bit-era; like the 16-bit era was 8-bit gameplay in perfection. Maybe the current era isn't the most innovative one, but it sure delivers gems which can be played in ten years from now without having the feeling that there is something missing.

The secret lies in the technology which finally allows programmers to achieve what they tried to achieve during the PS1 and N64 times. The goals of gameplay and the hardware possibilities matches perfectly which make for timeless classics. (like in the 16bit era)

A GT2 wasn't convincing in gameplay and graphics (it's not good if you try to produce photorealistic graphics and you end up with blocky, grainy textures and jaggies), and Perfect Dark 'looks' outdated. A GT3 is perfected in gameplay and graphics, and can be played in 5 years no matter in which direction graphics and gameplay go. The games achieve exactly what they set out to achieve. (like a Axelay, Space Megaforce, or Zelda LTTP)

Don't be so convinced there are no innovations of present gameplay; there are some interesting silent revolutions going on:

- the transformation of the traditional platformer

- the incorporation of more complex stories into gameplay will lead to more engrossing games (slow development, very slow, but we witness the process)

- the combination and balancing of non-linear with linear elements which creates games representing the seemingly exclusionary dominating gameplay elements of the past; there might be even a new genre developing for which we haven't found a label yet. (GTA, SSX3, Spiderman 2, Jak 2, and the upcoming Need for Speed Underground 2)

- genres traditionally strictly separated come more and more together (has lots to do with the above)

- games which give you more and more 'movie-like experiences' not becasue of the over-abundance of CGI sequences, but with gameplay (read Dead Revolver is the latest game which represent this tendency nicely)

Coupled all of the above with the perfected gameplay of the previous game era, the current games are neither boring nor at a dead-end when it comes to innovation. I think it's one of the more exciting game eras so far.

[ReaXan]

I think the general public likes to pick up a game they can learn the curve within 5 minutes,some RPG's and other games can take hours or days to ful master the controls and in this day in age people are all about micromanging time,thats why people alot of people only play spades,solitare and brickout on their computers and consoles because they have work,etc. that keeps them busy,I on the other hand can apreciate a game that has a learning curve but sometimes I feel its to great for me to spend time on it

[bluberry]

A GT2 wasn't convincing in gameplay and graphics (it's not good if you try to produce photorealistic graphics and you end up with blocky, grainy textures and jaggies), and Perfect Dark 'looks' outdated. A GT3 is perfected in gameplay and graphics, and can be played in 5 years no matter in which direction graphics and gameplay go. The games achieve exactly what they set out to achieve. (like a Axelay, Space Megaforce, or Zelda LTTP)


O_O

*explodes*

[musical]

SAD COMMENT: At Otakon yesterday, the videogame room was filled with exactly the same stuff as last year: DDR, Smash Brothers, Halo, music/puzzle games. Virtually NOTHING NEW in the last year worth playing. SAD.

A GT3 is perfected in gameplay and graphics, and can be played 5 years from now.)Disagree. 5 years from now (2009) when you see Gran Turismo 6 in widescreen, wih HDTV-resolution (quadruple what we have now), and graphics that look near-as-good as a live Indy 500 broadcast...

...GT3 will look like old crap. And like GT1/2, no one will touch it. Games that try to recreate reality, like Daytona USA or Football, don't last. They are quickly replaced by better reality games like Gran Turismo 4 or Madden 2004. When you see the PS3 versions of Gran Turismo (widescreen/ quadruple resolution/ graphics that look like live TV), your PS2 versions will land in the same trashcan as the PS1 versions.

=========================

"128 bit" is merely the name used in magazines to separate this generation from the previous "32/64-bit generation". It's not technically accurate, because all consoles from N64 to DC to PS2 have used 32-bit addressing.

[EnemyZero]

yeaaahhhh, someones definitely bend on graphics.....if everyone had the same train of thought as you musical there would be no collectors

[YoshiM]

You guys are just too pessimistic and over-critical. :)

Yeah, and your point? LOL


The current games represent perfected gameplay of the 32/64bit-era; like the 16-bit era was 8-bit gameplay in perfection. Maybe the current era isn't the most innovative one, but it sure delivers gems which can be played in ten years from now without having the feeling that there is something missing.

The secret lies in the technology which finally allows programmers to achieve what they tried to achieve during the PS1 and N64 times. The goals of gameplay and the hardware possibilities matches perfectly which make for timeless classics. (like in the 16bit era)

I'll agree that visually, unless developers and hardware allow for more photo realistic games beyond racing titles, the current gen will look good for some time. The problem lies not necessarily in the technology but in the process of using that technology. For example, it's been roughly eight years since 3D gaming was really introduced to the masses and developers still haven't figured out how to set up a decent third person camera in a platform environment. There are games that get pretty close but you'd think that eventually with all the practice they've had we'd get something better.

Another issue is an overally lack of "new" titles. What I mean by "new" something NOT based on a past title of this gen or a series from the past. Even though the 16 bit era (which is a good era to compare to) had a lot of "me too" games, they were still attempts to bring a different spin on a favorite genre. If you page back in magazines to the pre fighting game days you'll see a lot of chance taking. Some were average, some were worse but it was still an attempt. These days it seems as though it's more about staking out a franchise and creating a cash cow out of it, a trend that's pretty much stayed in place since about 1994. Where's the new frontiers that this technology brings? Oh, that's right, they are using it to make the next Tekken, GTA or Medal of Honor.


A GT2 wasn't convincing in gameplay and graphics (it's not good if you try to produce photorealistic graphics and you end up with blocky, grainy textures and jaggies), and Perfect Dark 'looks' outdated. A GT3 is perfected in gameplay and graphics, and can be played in 5 years no matter in which direction graphics and gameplay go. The games achieve exactly what they set out to achieve. (like a Axelay, Space Megaforce, or Zelda LTTP)

More subjective than anything. Personally I enjoy, for example, F-Zero X more so than the F-Zero GX for the Cube. The controls are much more finely tuned. To see the effect of long lasting play, we'll have to talk about this next gen and see how many of the big titles are on eBay and the trade wall at your favorite store.


Don't be so convinced there are no innovations of present gameplay; there are some interesting silent revolutions going on:

- the transformation of the traditional platformer

It transformed in 1996. Stayed pretty much the same since, though I'm sure there are exceptions I don't really know about (don't own a PS2).


- the incorporation of more complex stories into gameplay will lead to more engrossing games (slow development, very slow, but we witness the process)

Stories are good but it's also a game too. If the gameplay is boring until half way through, is that a good thing? I play a game to play and if there is a decent story that is woven into great gameplay, you have my attention. Chronicles of Riddick is an excellent example of that.


- the combination and balancing of non-linear with linear elements which creates games representing the seemingly exclusionary dominating gameplay elements of the past; there might be even a new genre developing for which we haven't found a label yet. (GTA, SSX3, Spiderman 2, Jak 2, and the upcoming Need for Speed Underground 2)

Can't argue there, I like the sandbox style games.


- games which give you more and more 'movie-like experiences' not becasue of the over-abundance of CGI sequences, but with gameplay (read Dead Revolver is the latest game which represent this tendency nicely)

True, but gotta be done right. MGS 2 and the Final Fantasy series is a good example of what not to do-huge CG sequences, a lotta wait to get into the game.


-Coupled all of the above with the perfected gameplay of the previous game era, the current games are neither boring nor at a dead-end when it comes to innovation. I think it's one of the more exciting game eras so far.

Exciting graphically, but nothing that really sets it apart either. When we moved from 8 bit to 16 we also had a jump in the number of buttons (perceived complexity) and the possibility of more complex games was available. We've moved ahead this gen but for many titles everything else beyond graphics and sound is stuck in neutral.

[musical]

yeaaahhhh, someones definitely bend on graphics.....if everyone had the same train of thought as you musical there would be no collectorsWOAH there bud. That's a mighty big assumption. I still play the primitive Space Invaders and Dig Dug on my beloved Atari, despite the square-shaped blocks, limited sounds, and few colors. I care about the FUN, not the graphics.

My point is that when you have virtually identical games (Gran Turismo 2 vs. Gran Turismo 4), all with the same goal of recreating the reality of racing... ...it makes sense to choose the one with the best graphics and best overall atmosphere. It makes for a better experience. It makes you feel like you're really racing. GT4 better achieves that goal of recreating racing reality.

Likewise I prefer the 16-bit Stunt Car Racer over the 8-bit.
Or hi-res Perfect Dark over lo-res.
DVD is preferred over VHS.
CD is preferred over cassette.
When you have idential items, it simply makes more sense to choose the more advanced version. Gran Turismo 2 and Gran Turismo 4 are virtually ideantial.... so naturally I choose the most-advanced version.



Don't try to claim I'm a graphics whore. Not when I have a pile of 8-bit games sitting in front of me, and a 20-year-old Commodore 128 on my desk. Your statement is 100% false.

[lendelin]

Finally I have the time to respond. Sorry it took me so long. I won't even respond to your laughing about my 'overcritical'-note. :)



I'll agree that visually, unless developers and hardware allow for more photo realistic games beyond racing titles, the current gen will look good for some time. The problem lies not necessarily in the technology but in the process of using that technology. For example, it's been roughly eight years since 3D gaming was really introduced to the masses and developers still haven't figured out how to set up a decent third person camera in a platform environment. There are games that get pretty close but you'd think that eventually with all the practice they've had we'd get something better.



I completely agree about the unresolved camera probs in 3D titles. I disagree that the current titles (just when it comes to 'looks') can be played only for some time before they look outdated. Games don't look just outdated with the passing of time and graphic development. If you look at games which just satisfy graphically long after their release, they never pushed the envelope. (or in the case of DKC 3, pushed the envelope and the result looks great - back then and now).

The secret is that games stay in the limits of their technology AND within these limits set out to achieve what they wanna achieve. A Galaga doesn't look outdated today 20 years after it was released, an Axelay still looks fantastic, a Chrono Trigger does, most 16bit titles do.; however, a "Drakkhen" for the SNES in which you could look around in 360 degrees looks outdated today.

A good way to see the results in the graphics department is to ask someone who doesn't play games at all. Non-gamers will tell you if a game looks good or not. A GT2 was never satisfying in the looks department, the goal to produce photorealistic graphics couldn't be achieved on the PS1. It never convinced me, the same goes for the controls (=development of physics engines). A GT3 achieves what developers wanted to achieve, and the goals and technology just matches perfectly.

Great game eras maybe not the most innovative, but they deliver perfected graphics and gameplay at the end of a development cycle which stand the test of time.


Another issue is an overally lack of "new" titles. What I mean by "new" something NOT based on a past title of this gen or a series from the past. Even though the 16 bit era (which is a good era to compare to) had a lot of "me too" games, they were still attempts to bring a different spin on a favorite genre. If you page back in magazines to the pre fighting game days you'll see a lot of chance taking. Some were average, some were worse but it was still an attempt. These days it seems as though it's more about staking out a franchise and creating a cash cow out of it, a trend that's pretty much stayed in place since about 1994. Where's the new frontiers that this technology brings? Oh, that's right, they are using it to make the next Tekken, GTA or Medal of Honor.

I have nothing against sequels. Sequels get too easily condemned as non-innovative. That's not the case. I look at sequels as a way to perfect gameplay, introduce some new innovations for a franchise whose basic set-up worked and has great appeal.

Game developers could not introduce or just overlooked some gameplay elements in a prequel, and the sequel gives them an opportunity to apply LEARNED elements of gameplay and put their experience to good use. Game developers learn and are fueled by perfectionism, like a painter gains experience and tries to perfect motifs he uses over and over again. (SMB3, a MM2, a FF2, a Castlevania 3, ...the list is very long of great and innovative sequels)

If a sequel just copies the old game, adds more of the same, or just adds some meaningless spalshy-flashy effects, in short: if the series stagnates (Tomb Raider) it spells doom. Some series came to an almost natural end if there is no appaeal anymore and they are done for money-making reasons only, and at one point every developer wants to do something else and something new instead of beating a dead horse. (RE series?)

The past wasn't better to introduce new franchises and new ideas. You'll always have the 'safe' route taken by publishers (another FPS, another wrestling game) and some risky routes (Beyond Good and Evil, Viewtiful Joe) which may or may not work out. The best thing for publsihers is to take both routes which gives the the oppotunity to stay in business and do some necessary risk taking with innovative games.

If you take your critical standard of todays games and apply the same standard to the past, the past looks as great or terrible or something in between as does the present.


More subjective than anything. Personally I enjoy, for example, F-Zero X more so than the F-Zero GX for the Cube. The controls are much more finely tuned.

I haven't played F Zero for the N64; if you are right, this still would confirm my rule. Not all 64 bit N titles look or play outdated. A Super Mario 64 is still just fantastic when it comes to gameplay and graphics. The reason is that the cartoony graphics of Mario didn't push the technological envelope. Mario is perfect within the hardware limitations of the N64. No finely tuned high-resolution textures were tried to achieve, and therefore the presentation matches perfectly what game developers tried to achive.

It looks very different for RPGs on the PS1 which used zoom effects, 3D effects, and the result are blocky polygons. Finely tuned textures couldn't be achieved, look terrible and outdated today as in the case of Perfect Dark and most racers.


Exciting graphically, but nothing that really sets it apart either. When we moved from 8 bit to 16 we also had a jump in the number of buttons (perceived complexity) and the possibility of more complex games was available. We've moved ahead this gen but for many titles everything else beyond graphics and sound is stuck in neutral.


I still think that the directions of gameplay I listed are new, exciting, and innovative and go beyond mere great graphics. Don't we have also found a new "complexity" today in games like GT3 with the free-roaming structure which gets so many times copied in various games overarching traditional genres? You get some innovations, and they get copied like always, and the majority of average games fuel complaints about the terrible non-innovative times in which the majority of games look and play alike (like always).

Actually, it's very interesting to watch how the current games try to harmonize the basic 'contradicting' gameplay of different game eras. First we had linearity as the dominant tendency rooted in the arcade heritage of games (exceptions for some genres apply), then we got to the big non-linearity phase with options for gamers, complex game-structures, and more 'freedom' which critics and gamers demanded and rewarded with purchases; then we discovered that older games in their linear simplicity satisfy as much our basic gaming needs (which never change) as the new more complex games, and we got a bit sick and tired of too much complexity.

What's the result? Re-makes and new releases of linear simple games which have a following, a boost for older games even among younger gamers, and more importantly, the often copied free-roaming structure of GT3 in games like Spider Man 2, SSX3, Jak 2, and many racers which allow you to combine both! It satisfies the need for linear simplicity which gives you a quick game fix and action-intense challenge as much as the need for "freedom" with dedicating more time for a game (the old 'collecting'-habit) and a toned-down challenge.

Now tell me....aren't our game-times boring or exciting or what? :)

[FantasiaWHT]

Back to the first post...

VERY incorrect as to sales figures between Xbox and Gamecube at first.

Even with the head start, Gamecube overtook Xbox QUITE quickly- Xbox was a distant third for quite sometime until really Xbox Live started rolling. Now Xbox is outselling both platforms here in the US (still not in Japan tho) and in Europe, and has taken over 2nd in overall systems sold in the US, but not worldwide.

[YoshiM]

Finally I have the time to respond. Sorry it took me so long. I won't even respond to your laughing about my 'overcritical'-note. :)

Finally I get a chance to read it.


I completely agree about the unresolved camera probs in 3D titles. I disagree that the current titles (just when it comes to 'looks') can be played only for some time before they look outdated. Games don't look just outdated with the passing of time and graphic development. If you look at games which just satisfy graphically long after their release, they never pushed the envelope. (or in the case of DKC 3, pushed the envelope and the result looks great - back then and now).

As for graphics being outdated: "some time" could be until next generation or forever. Depending on how much of a jump in graphic quality there is next generation, not every game of this generation is going to appeal to the eyes of some (or perhaps a large majority of mainstreamers who dispell the old when the get the new) next gen-adopting gaming enthusiasts. I bet some would be hard pressed to play the first Madden game available for the PS2 when Madden 2005 graphically beats it (as one of the the big things of modern football games is to bring the "visual experience" of football closer to realism each year). Both are of this generation of consoles. I do agree some titles will have lasting appeal but others that are "average" now might look less than average later.


The secret is that games stay in the limits of their technology AND within these limits set out to achieve what they wanna achieve. A Galaga doesn't look outdated today 20 years after it was released, an Axelay still looks fantastic, a Chrono Trigger does, most 16bit titles do.; however, a "Drakkhen" for the SNES in which you could look around in 360 degrees looks outdated today.

True, but you also nailed it that 2D and 3D are two completely different mediums by mentioning Drakkhen.

2D is like painted art: its looks can be timeless not only to the eye but also to the imagination needed to interpret what the viewer sees. 2D video games are kinda the same way. The 2D art can be simplistic but the gamer knows what things are and, depending on the vintage, imagination kicks in to take care of things. Gameplay, while fun, typically isn't necessarily "realistic" and gamers expect and accept that. I think the best way I can describe it is the expectations are "lower". Not a bad thing it just seems that there may be less scrutiny involved. Hey, it's fun to play Galaga even though the physics and such are probably impossible BUT it's simple (in a control sense) and direct, allowing us to suspend our disbelief.

3D is like life imitating sculpture, except that the earliest tools were very limiting but got better as time goes on. Say a sculptor only had access to a wide chisel and the closest thing they could get to a sculpture of a human being was an angular figure yet as time went on the tools got smaller and finer and that figure could eventually become a near spitting image of a human being. When you deal with 3D it takes more to suspend one's disbelief as there are more factors to deal with. We have gravity, distance, lighting...so many things we can draw comparisons from in the real world. I can't relate to Mario jumping from one platform to another in SMB as our world doesn't work that way. However I CAN relate to Mario jumping to a platform in SM64 as I have done something similar or have seen it done in our world of three dimensions.

As for graphics, who DOESN'T want to play a game that is appeal to the eyes? In the case of F-Zero GX for me: if the game handled exactly the same as it did in F-Zero X I'd probably like GX.



The past wasn't better to introduce new franchises and new ideas. You'll always have the 'safe' route taken by publishers (another FPS, another wrestling game) and some risky routes (Beyond Good and Evil, Viewtiful Joe) which may or may not work out. The best thing for publsihers is to take both routes which gives the the oppotunity to stay in business and do some necessary risk taking with innovative games.

Thing is with the past they stuck with "safe" genres moreso than "titles". Looking back, there wasn't a huge amount of sequelitis except in the realm of sports games and the "big" titles (Mario, Contra, Castlevania, Zelda, etc.). Overdoing a genre was probably just as bad (like the fighting genre) but at least we were given different approaches/characters/etc. to play with though YMMV.


If you take your critical standard of todays games and apply the same standard to the past, the past looks as great or terrible or something in between as does the present.

Oh, I have changed my tune since my "16 Bit days were the best" parade I had a while ago. But initially this generation didn't have near the impact as past generations had. The only one exception of this gen, as I said before, was Soul Calibur on the Dreamcast.


[quote[Now tell me....aren't our game-times boring or exciting or what? :)[/quote]

I'd have to say..."yes" LOL

[Ed Oscuro]

I actually read an article by Steven Kent a couple years saying that the only 128 bit console is the PS2. Dreamcast is 64bit, Gamecube is 64 bit, and im unsure of the Xbox (it's not 128 bit though). I know the GBA is 32bit. Bits matter, but not as much as you might think.

This is all quite silly, since people call the XBox 32 bit due to the Pentium III processor - but then they call the Dreamcast 128 bit, nevermind that the actual Hitachi SH-4 in the machine is only 64 bits. That's not consistent. The Dreamcast's GPU is 128 bit, but only puts out around 2.5M polygons/second while the XGPU puts out 64M, with one hardware light (it can do 16M polys/sec if four hardware lights are used). That's a huge discrepancy, and bits doesn't even serve to put it in the same historical category as the XBox - if we were looking at these machines' counterparts in the PC world the Dreamcast would've been the forgotten ancestor of the computer systems competing with the XBox. Trying to lump them together is bad for the Dreamcast, which really fits between the N64 (or Saturn) and XBox (quite close to the PS2, I'd say) in terms of chonology.

The amount of bits in a machine is much less than half, or even a quarter, of the factors that determine how something will compete...the SH-4 is only 200 MHz, and once again we've seen recently that MHz/GHz descriptions have limited utility as well. The main processor speeds along at a (I'm supposing consistent, not burst) steady 360 MIPS; whereas the XBox does 1980 MIPS, but only a little bit more than twice the number of floating point ops (2.9 gigaflops vs. the DC's 1.4). It goes on and on...if you need more numbers, look no further (http://hankfiles.pcvsconsole.com/answer.php?file=388).

[dreamcaster]

I find people are often comparing the current generation to the 16-bit generation.

Where existing game designs were pefected and became timeless classics.

I find this true for the 16-bit generation. I'm not a huge fan of the 8-bit consoles, as I find the 16-bit machines did everything the 8-bit ones could, only bigger, better, more and faster.

This is true of the current generation, however, I don't seem to have the same love affair with the current crop of consoles compared to the 16-bit ones.

I much prefer the previous era of (Saturn/PSX/N64). 3D was the revolution - the gaming landscape was being dramatically reshaped by the polygon revolution and it was an exciting time to be a gamer.

Sure, the games had flaws, but you forgot all that because it was 3D!

I guess gamers on here who gamed in the 8-bit console era (I missed out due to being a PC gamer in the late 80's) feel the way about 16-bit consoles as I do the current era.

Meh.

The Dreamcast really got the current generation off to a flying start, but it seems things have just slowed right down since then.

Who knows? Maybe a 1983-style market crash is on the way! That way, gaming will return to it's little niche from where it sprang. And us hardcore gamers can revel in infrequent releases, less availability and high prices. LOL

[musical]

I grew up in the late 80s 8-bit era, but I prefer 16-bit because its the same games, but with better sound & graphics. Metroid became Super Metroid. Zelda bame Link to the Past. Mario was upgraded to Mario All-Stars. Final Fantasy reached a state of perfection. Doulbe plus-good. ;-)



Same applies to "128-bit" versus 32/64. Gran Turismo & Smash Brothers & Dance Dance Revolution play better now than in the past. Same game, better sound & graphics.

The fatal flaw is that some game designers appear to be lazy in their sequels. Zelda Wind Waker has only half as many dungeons as Ocarina of Time. Mario Sunshine is only half as good as Mario 64. Final Fantasy looks beautiful, but is only a shadow of what it used to be on eht PS1.

So what's the deal? Why are deisngers cutting corners?

[musical]

On second thought, my *favorite* era is the pre-crash arcade era (70s/early-80s). Back when designers were experimenting with Night Driver, Space Invaders, Pac-Man, and Pitfall. That's when things were truly fresh and new. Since that time, everything's been a rehash.


But comparing NES vs. Super NES, or PS1 vs. PS2, I prefer the more advanced console. Same games/better technology.

[YoshiM]

I grew up in the late 80s 8-bit era, but I prefer 16-bit because its the same games, but with better sound & graphics. Metroid became Super Metroid. Zelda bame Link to the Past. Mario was upgraded to Mario All-Stars. Final Fantasy reached a state of perfection. Doulbe plus-good. ;-)

Same applies to "128-bit" versus 32/64. Gran Turismo & Smash Brothers & Dance Dance Revolution play better now than in the past. Same game, better sound & graphics.

The fatal flaw is that some game designers appear to be lazy in their sequels. Zelda Wind Waker has only half as many dungeons as Ocarina of Time. Mario Sunshine is only half as good as Mario 64. Final Fantasy looks beautiful, but is only a shadow of what it used to be on eht PS1.

So what's the deal? Why are deisngers cutting corners?

I think the cutting corners thing may have to do with having to get the product out faster. With every new hardware platform it gets more difficult to get the results you want that actually USES that extra techno-goodness. Or it could be that the wider audience of gamers don't have the time/attention span to actually play a game for 30 or 40 hours total so they gotta trim the games down.

[lendelin]

I bet some would be hard pressed to play the first Madden game available for the PS2 when Madden 2005 graphically beats it (as one of the the big things of modern football games is to bring the "visual experience" of football closer to realism each year). Both are of this generation of consoles. I do agree some titles will have lasting appeal but others that are "average" now might look less than average later.


I do agree that as a general rule games which try to achieve 'realism' will look in all likelihood more outdated with overall graphical development than games which try to achieve something else (cartoonish style, surreal 'real' graphics, parodies, carricature); but I think you stress too much graphical development as the decisive factor for lasting visual appeal. The 'style' of graphics and staying within the limits of the technology is much more important; 'Outlaw Volleyball' will look good in ten years from now no matter in which directions graphics are heading, same goes for Timesplitters, SMS, Devil May Cry, Gran Turismo 3 (although a realistic racer), as it is the case with the majority of 16bit titles which visually are still very convincing.

Staying within the technological limits means not pushing the envelope and not doing everything which is technologically possible but just doesn't look good. The overview of “Virtua Tennis” looks great and always will look great, but not the close-ups of the players which just look plain creepy. The 3D visual style was perfect in the overview of the game, but the close-ups should have been left out or presented in another way. Gamers and developers should take two steps back, ask themselves if the graphics are convincing if they see or apply new graphical effects; and if it looks with a distant view bad today it will look bad in ten years. If it looks good today, it will look good in ten years.

Sometimes we get caught up with new graphical effects and are in awe about high-res and new 3d zooming effects. It never convinced me at the time if the 'new' technology didn't match the style of the graphics and produced blocky polygons with pop-ups which destroy the graphical illusion more than enhancing it. It's not a hindsight view, but a criticsm I had at the release time. Starfox for the SNES was never convincing, but Starfox 64 was; the rotating effects of Castlevania IV were convincing sparingly used in one stage, and the zooming 3D effects of some RPGs of the 32/64bit era fail terribly compared to RPGs which didn't depend so much on new technology but stayed more within the 16bit graphics.

To bring graphics forward and being innovative in the graphics department means pushing the envelope; however, the more innovative you are, the more cutting-edge technologies are emphasized, the less staying power the game will have. Innovative and future-oriented, but soon forgotten because it looks outdated. Developers have to balance new technologies with everlasting visual appeal, and sometimes they go overboard with what's technologically possible. The former is emphasized at the expense of the latter.


2D is like painted art: its looks can be timeless not only to the eye but also to the imagination needed to interpret what the viewer sees. 2D video games are kinda the same way. The 2D art can be simplistic but the gamer knows what things are and, depending on the vintage, imagination kicks in to take care of things. Gameplay, while fun, typically isn't necessarily "realistic" and gamers expect and accept that. I think the best way I can describe it is the expectations are "lower". Not a bad thing it just seems that there may be less scrutiny involved. Hey, it's fun to play Galaga even though the physics and such are probably impossible BUT it's simple (in a control sense) and direct, allowing us to suspend our disbelief.

3D is like life imitating sculpture, except that the earliest tools were very limiting but got better as time goes on. Say a sculptor only had access to a wide chisel and the closest thing they could get to a sculpture of a human being was an angular figure yet as time went on the tools got smaller and finer and that figure could eventually become a near spitting image of a human being. When you deal with 3D it takes more to suspend one's disbelief as there are more factors to deal with. We have gravity, distance, lighting...so many things we can draw comparisons from in the real world. I can't relate to Mario jumping from one platform to another in SMB as our world doesn't work that way. However I CAN relate to Mario jumping to a platform in SM64 as I have done something similar or have seen it done in our world of three dimensions.


I completely agree with the basic ‘realistic’ experience and imagination-sparking difference between 2D and 3D. You pointed out very important diffrences in perception of visuals and the basic mimesis problem. How realistic should a game (or painting, or novel, or a sculpture) be and how realistic can it be? However, 3D doesn’t necessarily try to be ‘realistic,’ it depends on the set-up and visual style of the game.

Games as a general rule should not and never can be ‘realistic’ in a sense that it copies reality as we see it and know it. Not even the ‘Hologram’ in Star Trek delivers this kind of realism. Games have to deliver something ‘unrealistic’ even if they use the most ‘realistic’ graphics, otherwise they become obsolete. Realistic racers and sports titles use realism to deliver what we never achieve in real life, playing in the NBA or racing Laguna Seca. (Not to mention extreme sports titles, and to a much higher extent surreal settings with different visual styles like RE, Devil May Cry, Super Mario 64, Simcity...) However, you’re absolutely right that we can ‘check’ the graphics in realistic sports and racers with our experiences in real life, and they have to be convincing in a ‘realistic’ sense to a much higher extent than the most detailed graphics in Castlevania LOI.

Again, the visual style and staying within the technological limits so they both match are more important to show visual staying power than just 2D, 3D, or a realistic or a surrealistic genre. A GT2 was never convincing because the technology wasn’t ready yet to deliver what Polyphony tried to achieve; today they both match. A GT3 or 4 or Project Gotham Racing doesn’t try to achieve more realism than the graphics engines can deliver, and that’s key.

Developers went overboard when 3D was introduced as painters did when the thousands year-old 3D-problem was resolved. After the laws of central perspective were developed in Florence around 1415/20 and painters could go from 2D to 3D , what happened? In order to prove that you mastered the technique and are on the cutting edge, and also because of enthusiasm about this GIANT step in painting the world “realistic” as we see it, painters put buildings with clear lines for windows and ornaments in the foreground and background of the paintings, no matter if it fit the theme or not; it was done for the sake of the central perspective and give the painted scene a more realistic look. The painted saints and Jesus seemed to have lived suddenly in Italy during the Renaissance times because modern Renaissance buildings were put into miracle scenes.

In the next hundred years the central perspective was mastered, used much more sparingly and subtle, lightning effects became more important to create 3D than mere straight interrupted lines from the foreground to the background; today these first exercises in a groundbreaking discovery seem ridiculous and outdated if the style didn’t match the theme, was done for it’s own sake, could not match the goals of the painting, and the story told was neglected.

As in games, cutting-edge technology has to be used carefully and moderately, the goal has to be set and examined if the new technology adds to achieve this goal or not; the excessive use of cutting-edge technology is innovative, exciting, future oriented, but as a rule doesn’t have staying power.

[lendelin]

The fatal flaw is that some game designers appear to be lazy in their sequels. Zelda Wind Waker has only half as many dungeons as Ocarina of Time. Mario Sunshine is only half as good as Mario 64. Final Fantasy looks beautiful, but is only a shadow of what it used to be on eht PS1.

So what's the deal? Why are deisngers cutting corners?

It's not laziness of developers, it's changing gaming habits of players due to market situations. We get more games than ever at a cheaper price, casual gamers came in, the result is probably that the average gamer expects less time to spend for an individual game. Lots of gamers complained in the last five years that gamer became too long and too complex. The answer are games which are a tiny bit less complex but way shorter.

[FantasiaWHT]

Besides, isn't the Xbox technically 64 bit?

[dreamcaster]

Besides, isn't the Xbox technically 64 bit?

It's 32-bit.