The Next Generation of Videogames [games]
News article about Nintendo.
Here's what I thought was the most interesting bit:
I've been thinking this myself for a while.
In the past, new generations of consoles were noticably better than the previous ones. In the first, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision had really blocky graphics for the most part, and few screens. The Nintendo NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis had complex games with many screens, even though the graphics were still primarily 2D. Starting with 3DO, and quickly followed by Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation, and Nintendo N64, games were 3D. Everything was 3D, with shading, animation, etc. Each step also meant that gameplay was greatly affected -- more levels meant more complex gameplay. 3D instead of 2D also added complexity, as well as an experience that was new. The jump from 2D Mario to 3D was huge!
The newer consoles all have better graphics than those in the past, but how much have the games changed? Sure, they look better, which is only to be expected, but aside from "more realistic", is that it? And how much more realism do we need in graphics? The current systems are already supporting video standards beyond that which conventional analog TVs are capable.
Manufacturers promised that increased power of new systems will also allow better physics and AI, as well as better graphics. My thought is that this is great if your goal is the ultimate simulator, but let's back up a second -- if you are just adding complexity, it doesn't necessarily mean you're chasing the right solution. This goes for any software. (Solve the problem!) Sure, it's nice to have feature bragging rights, but particularly when it comes to games, sometimes you just want to access it quickly and play.
What I'm getting at is people say they like features, but when it really comes down to it, people shop on price, not just on content. Otherwise, we'd all be driving luxury cars, 6 megapixel cameras, and have top of the line everything. Most of us have "normal" cars, 3mp digital cameras, etc. Only if you are a photography nut will you spend the extra for 6 mp; right now, you can get good 4x6 prints with 3mp at a reasonable price, 4mp is starting to replace 3mp, but the price really jumps to get to 6mp.
If the new games and systems don't offer something tangibly new to the experience, they're not going to be as excited about it. Meanwhile, it's a terrible cost not just for millions of consumers to re-buy a new console, but for companies to get up to speed on the new system. And the average user isn't going to sit there and count polygons -- once the 3D graphics are sufficiently detailed, more detail will only go so far. The bottom line is, the game has to be fun first, cool graphics second. Unless you just want a quick sale followed by disappointment, but that only goes so far before the consumer becomes discouraged from making further purchases.
Sony seems to be the best at handling some of the problems that I see. First, their consoles have lasted for 5 years before the next arrives, giving users time before feeling like they have to upgrade. Second, you don't have to toss out your software -- it runs on the new box. So, it ends up being a pretty good value, so far.
But I think it's the die-hard gaming fans that will jump into any technology just to have the latest thing, and average consumers will buy it now or later, but do not need the ultimate graphics. Being second-best might be just fine, perhaps better than expected. Even if you give people a better system, are they really going to notice that it displays 25 million polygons per second instead of 10 million? I'm sure that if two otherwise identical games & systems are set up side-by-side, most people could tell the difference, but I think we are reaching a point of diminishing returns. Even if you insist that this upcoming generation of gaming consoles will be a significant step, where do you go from there?
Instead, Nintendo is implying that they'll give users something new. Hey, how about 3D shutter-glasses? I'd like to play some 3D games in real 3D! You might not even need a new machine for that.
Here's what I thought was the most interesting bit:
...the gaming industry is reaching a dead end as its past formula for success — dazzling consumers with more sophisticated imagery — no longer works.
I've been thinking this myself for a while.
In the past, new generations of consoles were noticably better than the previous ones. In the first, the Atari 2600 and Intellivision had really blocky graphics for the most part, and few screens. The Nintendo NES, SNES, and Sega Genesis had complex games with many screens, even though the graphics were still primarily 2D. Starting with 3DO, and quickly followed by Sega Saturn, Sony Playstation, and Nintendo N64, games were 3D. Everything was 3D, with shading, animation, etc. Each step also meant that gameplay was greatly affected -- more levels meant more complex gameplay. 3D instead of 2D also added complexity, as well as an experience that was new. The jump from 2D Mario to 3D was huge!
The newer consoles all have better graphics than those in the past, but how much have the games changed? Sure, they look better, which is only to be expected, but aside from "more realistic", is that it? And how much more realism do we need in graphics? The current systems are already supporting video standards beyond that which conventional analog TVs are capable.
Manufacturers promised that increased power of new systems will also allow better physics and AI, as well as better graphics. My thought is that this is great if your goal is the ultimate simulator, but let's back up a second -- if you are just adding complexity, it doesn't necessarily mean you're chasing the right solution. This goes for any software. (Solve the problem!) Sure, it's nice to have feature bragging rights, but particularly when it comes to games, sometimes you just want to access it quickly and play.
What I'm getting at is people say they like features, but when it really comes down to it, people shop on price, not just on content. Otherwise, we'd all be driving luxury cars, 6 megapixel cameras, and have top of the line everything. Most of us have "normal" cars, 3mp digital cameras, etc. Only if you are a photography nut will you spend the extra for 6 mp; right now, you can get good 4x6 prints with 3mp at a reasonable price, 4mp is starting to replace 3mp, but the price really jumps to get to 6mp.
If the new games and systems don't offer something tangibly new to the experience, they're not going to be as excited about it. Meanwhile, it's a terrible cost not just for millions of consumers to re-buy a new console, but for companies to get up to speed on the new system. And the average user isn't going to sit there and count polygons -- once the 3D graphics are sufficiently detailed, more detail will only go so far. The bottom line is, the game has to be fun first, cool graphics second. Unless you just want a quick sale followed by disappointment, but that only goes so far before the consumer becomes discouraged from making further purchases.
Sony seems to be the best at handling some of the problems that I see. First, their consoles have lasted for 5 years before the next arrives, giving users time before feeling like they have to upgrade. Second, you don't have to toss out your software -- it runs on the new box. So, it ends up being a pretty good value, so far.
But I think it's the die-hard gaming fans that will jump into any technology just to have the latest thing, and average consumers will buy it now or later, but do not need the ultimate graphics. Being second-best might be just fine, perhaps better than expected. Even if you give people a better system, are they really going to notice that it displays 25 million polygons per second instead of 10 million? I'm sure that if two otherwise identical games & systems are set up side-by-side, most people could tell the difference, but I think we are reaching a point of diminishing returns. Even if you insist that this upcoming generation of gaming consoles will be a significant step, where do you go from there?
Instead, Nintendo is implying that they'll give users something new. Hey, how about 3D shutter-glasses? I'd like to play some 3D games in real 3D! You might not even need a new machine for that.
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home