Rumor: Xbox Natal is Actually Microsoft's Next Console

[NayusDante]

And on that note, I give you the song, Hey Hey 16K. http://www2.b3ta.com/heyhey16k/

But that's all about RAM. RAM only limits how much content can be in use at one time, storage is independent.

DVD9 is definitely a lot of data, but look at the limitations. Take Fallout 3 for example. F3 fits on one disc, and look how much content there is. Still, if it were on a 20gb disc, do you think they would have made more varied rocks? How about some more character models? Maybe they could have more than 8 voice actors (still better than Oblivion's 5 or so).

We still have a lot of room for expansion. Modern game textures really aren't that big, so that can get a lot better. The problem is, photograph-resolution images aren't small, they're several megabytes each. Instead of that wall texture being 512kb, it's going to be 5mb. Multiply that by 1000 textures, and you're running out of space for everything else. Audio can't get much better, and it's not worth the indiscernible quality gains. Geometry will gradually increase, but not so much as bumpmaps and such, which will also reach photograph-resolutions.

In essence, another generation with DVD as the primary reading medium won't give us better looking games. They might play better with the new controls, but the content is going to be the same as what we're seeing now, just rendered at a higher resolution. For comparison, play Doom at 1920x1080 with modern mouse-and-keyboard controls.

Why hasn't anybody else suggested that the next gen Xbox is download only instead of arguing over whether it'll be BluRay, HD-DVD, DVD, or who knows what else?

Because your ISP doesn't want people downloading 25gb archives. Time Warner is seriously testing out 5 and 10gb monthly limits out west.

[Nature Boy]

Because your ISP doesn't want people downloading 25gb archives. Time Warner is seriously testing out 5 and 10gb monthly limits out west.

Games don't *need* to be 25 GB though. And as has been mentioned (though I don't know why anyone *cares* personally), it would necessitate streamlining the code to be as small as possible, as there are tangible gains.

Maybe it would simply mean the end of the cut-scene (Kojima just felt a chill I'd bet...).

And maybe with compression (totally wild guess) you wouldn't have to download the full 25 GB anyway.

[NayusDante]

Cut-scenes are still important. What they need to do is switch everything to in-engine cut-scenes, rather than FMV. FMV disrupts gameplay. I don't care if there's more visual detail in FMV, just work in the limits of the in-engine graphics and keep things consistent.

[TonyTheTiger]

But that's all about RAM. RAM only limits how much content can be in use at one time, storage is independent.

RAM has actually been more of a thorn than storage. I'd make a bet that if you polled 100 experienced developers and asked them to choose between having twice as much RAM or twice as much storage space to work with, they'd pick the former.

DVD9 is definitely a lot of data, but look at the limitations. Take Fallout 3 for example. F3 fits on one disc, and look how much content there is. Still, if it were on a 20gb disc, do you think they would have made more varied rocks? How about some more character models? Maybe they could have more than 8 voice actors (still better than Oblivion's 5 or so).

Maybe. That's the thing. This is all a big maybe because storage space is not the only variable. It's not the only (nor even the most important) limitation. And if I'm MS I'm going to ask myself if the extra $100+ per console for higher capacity media is going to actually mean something when I might be sacrificing sales in the process. Just by comparing the 360 and PS3 we can already see that storage capacity alone doesn't mean jack. So I would ask myself if the storage is really going to matter or if I'll get the same games overall with DVD. If the extra space came free then it would be an easy choice but right now it's really not.

Maybe it would simply mean the end of the cut-scene (Kojima just felt a chill I'd bet...).

Cut scenes, when they're real time, aren't actually all that space costly. It's Square-Enix and Mistwalker who would feel the burn.

But, really, I don't see why we "need" anything. Consoles certainly don't "need" any one thing to survive. A Gamecube with wavy wands and a handheld with two screens are currently beating the living shit out of everything else.

I see it like I do the space in a fridge. You ever go out to buy milk and come home and find there's no room? What do you do? You don't just leave the milk out. You make room. You force things to the back to increase space, you rearrange things to make the order more efficient, etc. Now what would happen if you had a fridge 5 times the size in your kitchen? Wow, that's a lot of space. You'll never have to worry about running out of room now.

But how much food are you going to buy? The monetary requirement (for the food and the giant fridge), the effort requirement of going to the store all the time and lugging home bags and bags of food, etc.? The cost/benefit analysis says that because you aren't likely to buy 15 gallons of milk, the extra cost for the super fridge is not warranted. Now you don't want a mini-fridge because you might want to put a turkey in there once in a while. But when you go fridge shopping you might not want to spend the extra money on the super gigantic one that can fit an entire cow.

[parallaxscroll]

Next-gen Xbox3/PS4 consoles should be powerful enough that all cinematic intros & cut-scenes could be shown with real-time in-engine visual. Much like like Resident Evil 5 for instance, it has amazingly good real-time cutscenes.

The next-next consoles should be powerful enough to push in-game graphics that rival some CGI. I don't mean ultra high-end, high-budget CGI used in feature films, but perhaps the level of CGI used in PS2/Xbox game intros. Even though PS2/Xbox CGI was played back at 480i/480p resolution, if realtime graphics could be as good, that would represent much better graphics than what Xbox360/PS3 currently do in realtime at HD 720p/1080p. It's not about screen resolution, it's about the detail that can be put into game character models & environments. It's about the lighting, the pixel shaders, textures, level of anti-aliasing, motion-blur and post-processing effects. As well as framerate.

[Sonicwolf]

It's not about screen resolution, it's about the detail that can be put into game character models & environments. It's about the lighting, the pixel shaders, textures, level of anti-aliasing, motion-blur and post-processing effects. As well as framerate.

Its also about making goddamned good quality hardware that isnt broken so easily. Im looking at you Microsoft.

I swear this is the worst generation of video game consoles for reliability.

[Nature Boy]

Cut-scenes are still important. What they need to do is switch everything to in-engine cut-scenes, rather than FMV. FMV disrupts gameplay. I don't care if there's more visual detail in FMV, just work in the limits of the in-engine graphics and keep things consistent.

I didn't mean to derail things *too* much (though I readily admit my distaste for cut-scenes).

I don't care if they're in-engine or FMV - if I'm not playing, I'm annoyed. Half Life 2 did it well - yeah you're not actually playing per-se, but it sure beat the mess that was MGS 2 (my personal 'these cut-scenes are driving me nuts, I'm not playing MGS after this' game).

You can tell a good story without them. These aren't movies, they're games. When we're talking about being creative, let's talk about telling a story using the medium, rather than trying to mimic another (movies).

[NayusDante]

Well, I actually loved MGS2 BECAUSE of its cut-scenes. The gameplay was solid enough, but the cut-scenes really made the story great. If you're still running around while people are talking, you can't take the story seriously. When it's something halfway between a game and a movie, and can succeed as both, I think it's definitely justified.

Xenosaga, however, felt a bit weaker as a game and the whole experience felt like watching anime. I thought it was pointless that they actually commissioned an entire anime for it...

[TonyTheTiger]

The problem is that it's actually very difficult to tell a story more complicated then "evil reptile, stolen princess, go save her" without using a cut scene. Even "our princess is in another castle" can qualify as a cut scene. It might be mercifully short, but it's there. At some point, when you want the player to understand something you don't have many options beyond making the player sit there and listen.

[Nature Boy]

The problem is that it's actually very difficult to tell a story more complicated then "evil reptile, stolen princess, go save her" without using a cut scene. Even "our princess is in another castle" can qualify as a cut scene. It might be mercifully short, but it's there. At some point, when you want the player to understand something you don't have many options beyond making the player sit there and listen.

Like I said, I didn't intend to sidetrack the conversation, but I want to say this: the beauty of a well written comic is how well it uses the medium to tell the story (like the Watchmen say).

I'd love to see more well written video games that focus on using the medium to tell the story and do not rely on another medium ('movies') to do so.

[Icarus Moonsight]

I agree Nature Boy, 100%

If that is the case with the next Xbox (parallaxscroll's post w/ linky) I'm glad I didn't waste money and buy an HDTV yet. Slow it the fuck down MS.

[GameBoyGeek]

Goodbye in-depth video games, hello quick money grubbing ala shovelware motion sensing horsecrap.

Most in depth games waved bye bye a long time ago.

[TonyTheTiger]

Like I said, I didn't intend to sidetrack the conversation, but I want to say this: the beauty of a well written comic is how well it uses the medium to tell the story (like the Watchmen say).

I'd love to see more well written video games that focus on using the medium to tell the story and do not rely on another medium ('movies') to do so.

I'm not sure how possible that is as there are only so many ways to convey something. You can "let the game speak for itself" so to speak. Mega Man doesn't need much dialogue to establish what plot is. But if the designers intend to convey a plot that has more nuance there aren't many options beyond "make the player read it," "make the player listen to it," or "make the player watch it." You can't really communicate any other way. The alternative is to have a story straight forward enough so that it's obvious (ala Mario) or not have a story at all (ala Tetris). You could pull a Star Fox and have the dialogue happen along with the action but that's probably not easy to do with every genre.

I suppose games like Mass Effect sort of use the medium's strengths as the story is dependent on the choices you make but that's pretty game specific, as well. Not every game's plot is going to (or even should) be that open ended. So cut scenes have become a necessary evil. When they're good, everything is great. When they're self indulgent nonsense, they suck. When they can't be skipped, they're annoying. I think the bigger problem is not so much the cut scene itself but the fact that video game cut scenes are sometimes poorly written and poorly paced. You need to tell a story, fine. Cut scenes are probably necessary. But we don't need a massive 20 minute long scene right before the last boss that explains the entire plot of the game.

[NayusDante]

Mega Man doesn't need much dialogue to establish what plot is.

That's because for 1, 3, and 4, the story was in the manual. You don't want to go back to THAT now, do you? Unless you read the manuals, you wouldn't know about Wily and Light working together or what's up with Dr. Cossack. When the series actually did add dialog, it was never very substantial, and it should have just become a manga or an anime, because it has so much story potential.

The "Star Fox" approach only seems to work in a more arcade-style game. Gradius V executed it nicely.

I can understand and almost justify the criticism though. I still fall into the "cut-scenes are good" camp. Lately, when I'm playing an RPG, I find myself asking if the gameplay is there just to pad the story? Cloud has to infiltrate the Shinra building, but not before he fights "evil houses" in the trash-laden alleyways. Am I playing the game because fighting these houses is fun, and they help me gain experience points, or am I playing to get to that next dialog to learn more about what's going on. I suppose you could apply the "reward" principal here. WoW players log crazy hours because they're rewarded with items and experience, which has more meaning than the story. I'm more motivated to prepare for a boss fight in FF because of the story that I'll get afterwards. Without the story, I'm just playing the stats, and I'd be better off rolling multi-sided dice with some friends.

As for Metal Gear, I'm seeing two sides of the fanbase. There's a group that likes the cut-scenes and the story, but there's also a group that seems more drawn to the "military" aspect of it. My friends always seemed to like it for the themes and action, but when I finally picked up the series, the story and atmosphere were what hooked me. I have no skill at stealth games whatsoever, but I work my way through because it's a great story and has amazing presentation. If you don't like the cut-scenes, then you probably shouldn't be playing Metal Gear.

If you want to see modern games that balance action and story well, look at Oblivion and Fallout 3. There's not a lot of dialog in the story, but that's because you can make your character whatever you want. Since there's no way to tailor the story to your character, it has to be generic and there can't be any meaningful story told.

This is just the way it is. A story is something that needs to be taken in and understood. By its very nature, it can't be meaningful if it's secondary to the gameplay, it has to be equal.

[TonyTheTiger]

I'm not saying it's bad to use cut scenes. In fact, I'm saying it's damn near necessary to some extent. I do wish, however, certain games would be a little more consistent with how they distributed the sequences. Chrono Cross is a perfect example of a game that tosses 80% of the plot at you like two hours before you beat the game. It's confusing, especially since the writing is incredibly obtuse. Metal Gear has had the same problem. Proper pacing in games is just as important as proper pacing in other mediums.

[NayusDante]

Proper pacing is definitely important for everything else, but I think that games can be an exception. When you're not required to sit for a definite length of time, the game could add more story to a section to encourage you to play that section through in fewer sittings. There's no time limit on Metal Gear, you could watch one cut-scene and be done for the evening. Non-story games, however, benefit greatly from proper pacing, Super Metroid for example. No matter how much time I sit down for, I make constant progress in Super Metroid, and it's never bogged down by story. Metroid Fusion, in comparison, delivers a thin narrative, but still succeeds as a good portable game, with the same pacing. However, neither deliver a hard-hitting story.

Your Chrono Cross argument, however, definitely makes sense. I played the game one week when I was out sick, and I didn't take many breaks except to sleep. That story buildup at the end was very memorable for me, but probably because I was completely absorbed for days. Playing through it for a few hours a night, I could see it being a bit absurd. However, more weight in a section of a game can be a good thing, because otherwise, the entire game is monotone. Metal Gear Solid 2 made some very poignant statements toward the end, which wouldn't have been as meaningful if they were thrown out during the slow parts.

Please don't think that I'm trying to argue or flame here, I'm just providing my own counterpoints to the discussion. I'll admit that I tend to look for more story value in games, and I usually tolerate the shortcomings if the story is good.

[kedawa]

Pressing a button every now and then to advance the non-interactive story is not gaming.
It's just a shitty way to watch a movie.

[Rob2600]

That's because for 1, 3, and 4, the story was in the manual. You don't want to go back to THAT now, do you? Unless you read the manuals, you wouldn't know about Wily and Light working together or what's up with Dr. Cossack.

Does a video game like Mega Man even need a story? In the late 1980s, my friends and I put the cartridge in, turned it on, and played it. We were the good guy and had to defeat the bad guy.

Likewise with The Legend of Zelda and Metroid. The instruction manuals had pages of story. Did my friends and I read them? No. Again, we were the good guy and had to figure out how to defeat the bad guy. Perfect.

Super Mario 64 - a quick explanation in the very beginning and that was it. Perfect.


Anyway, nobody cared about having a story until Ninja Gaiden was released on the NES. Ever since then, many developers (and many gamers) have been obsessed with cinema scenes.

[scooterb23]

Ninja Gaiden had a story?

Cutscenes are the bane of my existence. I have almost zero interest in storylines for games. Just let me run, and shoot, and die and have fun.

[TonyTheTiger]

I think it really depends on what the game's going for. All games have identities. Plots are not a bane on video games but they aren't necessary either.