What's next?

[Aswald]

This is for the more recent-console-savvy...

What will the next generation of consoles offer, do you think? Quite frankly, I do not see any great difference between, say, the Playstations 1 and 2.

I'm just wondering, because in the past, consoles had to offer something truly significant.

The ColecoVision and the 5200 were there because the older consoles could not possibly keep up with the newer arcade games, really.

The NES revived an industry that had committed suicide. This is what made me so mad at the Japan-bashing by Atari.

The Playstation era gave us the true 3-D environment games, something earlier consoles (16-Bit) couldn't do very well. Spyro the Dragon was one such example.

But what do the current, and what will the future, consoles, offer? Aside from slightly better cosmetics?

[Jumpman Jr.]

what will the future, consoles, offer? Aside from slightly better cosmetics?

Well, videos of the Wii's controller show that the player will have to move it around so it can react with a motion sensor to control what's on screen.
I've heard rumors about the PS3 adopting this strategy too.
I think the companies realize that although they can create better graphics, they will only be marginally better. So to generate 'hype' they need something revolutionary.

[mailman187666]

they do have the motion sensing for the new systems, and the ability to play the game in hi-def. I believe that PS3 will have larger disk capacity with it blue ray disks which could open up more detailed/deeper games. Also the big thing now is all the online capabilities that all the new systems are getting. Xbox has the live system with downloadable arcade games and whatnot, PS3 will have something similar. The Wii will have the virtual console for older titles to be purchased which has yet to be done. Wii is trying to start an evolution in the way games are played without having a massive jump in visuals.

[Griking]

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.

[Vectorman0]

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 think the biggest problem lies in the console manufacturers not leaving the current consoles they put out with enough potential for big upgrades. I think this upcoming generation (360/PS3/Wii) should be staying around for a while, and we should just be able to update the dashboards or flash the firmware with whatever we need for another few years of gaming.

I hope eventually even the less savvy consumers will not buy into $400-$600 consoles every four years, and hopefully something will change

[Oobgarm]

More of an 'experience', making the gamer feel more like they're in the game itself. Feedback was the beginning, now motion sensing.

[CosmicMonkey]

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.

Quoted for truth.

Realistically though, how much further can it go? By then end of the next gen, you'll have super Hi-Def graphics that look like real life. Then what? Gaming itself is flawed by its output device: a TV/Monitor. There's only so far you can go graphics wise with a flat telly screen. Once you've recreated real life with photo realistic graphics and near perfect physics engines, then what?

You can try to immerse the player as much as possible with rumble pads and motion sensors, but it's all still limited by that telly.

So what does happen when we have photo realistic graphics (and GTA gets banned, I mean, c'mon)? Well hopefully everyone will realise that games are just that: games. There's no need for this silly nonsense of paying a good £600 for a PS3 plus a couple of games. £600 to play a damn videogame?!! Surely a second-hand SuperFami with Secret of Mana will provide just as much entertainment value? In fact, when it comes down to it, what really is the difference between FFVI on the SNES and FF13/14(?) on the PS3 other than graphics? And really, what is the difference between Space Invaders and the lastest Cave shooter? Other than a scrolling background to give the feeling of movement (along with graphics that fit for this generation) and improved enemies what really is the difference? At the most basic level, you're still moving a spaceship around to shoot stuff.

So um, yeah. Hopefully everyone else will realise that games are just games. Something to do for entertainment. It doesn't matter if you're playing Space Invaders on the 2600 or the latest 3D action game as long as you're having fun. But imho, you're mad spending £600 quid when you can have more fun with a second-hand Megadrive with Sonic 2 and Street of Rage 2. For £20.