Things That Bother You About Gaming

[Foggle]

Microsoft is practically re-releasing the Xbox 360 under a new name. The Wii U graphics definitely look better than the 360 and PS3, but the jump in fidelity is not exactly huge.

60fps? 1080p? All that stuff has been easily achievable for years, but devs have intentionally avoided them. Next gen wouldn't have changed anything no matter how powerful the games were.

So what's the point in even releasing a new console if the upgrade isn't going to be particularly noteworthy? This sounds like a cash grab and nothing more.

[talonmalon333]

But why Retro? Why not Monolith? They did Xenoblade which proves they could easily make something new out of Zelda. How about the second EAD crew? I'm sure it wouldn't be hard for them either. Heck, why not GameFreak? They've done Pulseman and Drill Dozer, they could easily make a sidescolling Zelda that makes Zelda 2 look like a joke.

Why specifically Retro?

This feels like fans putting them on a silver platter because they took Super Metroid and put it in 3D. But... They can't do that trick with Zelda. I have a feeling some people just want Metroid Prime 1 with Link in place of Samus. But that wouldn't work at all for something like Zelda because it's a different series. Either way, the project was canceled a long time ago because Nintendo didn't like where it was going.

My point is that the established series all have established developers. Retro should stick with a new IP (whatever that is) and concentrate on that. Whether that's Donkey Kong Country, or whatever, I don't care. Going back to Metroid would be fruitless, and taking on Zelda while there's already an established Zelda team when these guys could be doing something new feels like a waste.

Like I said, they ask for Retro cause it's been heavily hinted. If it was hinted at about another good company, I'm sure you'd hear support for that, too.

And from what I hear, Xenoblade was kinda lame. So I'm not sure I'd trust Monolith.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Yeah, I honestly couldn't care less about graphics anymore. I mean, don't get me wrong, if a game looks horrid than that is bad design, but as long as the game is well-designed from a level design stand-point and doesn't have any glaring graphical issues (like stuff that could it to be hard to find certain things visible within a game and could actually affect gameplay itself), then I really don't give a shit if it looks as simplistic as a Dreamcast game or as graphically advanced as Uncharted. As always, I care about things like gameplay and replay value. You know, the things that I would associate video GAMES with. The sad thing is that an opinion like that seems to be becoming trivial among "modern" gamers.

As for the next-gen, I'm more interested to see how developers can use the technology in creative ways that affect gameplay (such as with a touch-screen controller and stuff like that). If next-gen games just turn out to be more refined versions of stuff like Call of Duty and Uncharted, then I may just quit gaming (or at least modern gaming; I'll still always love the classics).

[Foggle]

You're right, graphics aren't super important, but really, that's all Microsoft has going for them at this point (other than Halo, of course). If MS can't even improve their tech enough to justify an upgrade, then why the hell are they even releasing a new console?

[Spark Of Spirit]

Heavy Kinect focus, improved XBLA, and whatever new gimmick they have, I'm sure. Also, Halo and Gears. I don't know what they're going to do, but it has to be based more on just raw power as that doesn't really mean much anymore.

Microsoft is practically re-releasing the Xbox 360 under a new name. The Wii U graphics definitely look better than the 360 and PS3, but the jump in fidelity is not exactly huge.

60fps? 1080p? All that stuff has been easily achievable for years, but devs have intentionally avoided them. Next gen wouldn't have changed anything no matter how powerful the games were.

So what's the point in even releasing a new console if the upgrade isn't going to be particularly noteworthy? This sounds like a cash grab and nothing more.

Man, there hasn't even been a single screenshot of an actual Wii-U game yet. We don't even know how powerful the thing really is and won't until E3.

The fact of the matter is that Microsoft and Sony bled millions of dollars last gen trying to be cutting edge and still didn't get any further ahead. People are no longer impressed by state of the art graphics anymore, they don't even notice when a game is "sub HD" even when the game is released on a HD system. The graphics arms race is a dead end. It's simply not worth pursuing.

What matters now are the games and how we play them. Like the Wii proved, people want new ways to game while still being offered the traditional experience. Nintendo is hoping to improve their performance (they're jumping two gens ahead here), add in the second screen with touch screen controls, and keep the wiimote controls. Basically, they're trying to do a lot. Microsoft is doing the same after Kinect, they're trying appeal to the mainstream to get more people to play games and they don't need to sink billions of dollars to do it. Microsoft's gaming division has been in the red since they started, the Xbox was saved only by Halo and the 360 because Sony screwed up, but they never really gained headway.

But I mean, what would pure tech really do at this point? Make game worlds bigger? How does that add to the game other than just putting in more space? Make graphics prettier? The Wii proved that no one really cares about graphics anymore. 1080p and 60fps? They could do that this gen and they don't. While that stuff is nice, it doesn't really change anything.

This generation has to be about appealing to the mainstream, how to make games more accessible for as many people as possible, while also offering new experiences. Just making games prettier and bigger doesn't cut it anymore, and these devs have to stop using them as a crutch instead of making new experiences.

For example, what do you think COD next gen is going to be? DOOM-easque labyrinths with branching paths and hidden caches? It's going to be COD3 (a game two gens old) with prettier graphics and online multiplayer. At that point, what is even the reason to make a next gen game?

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Well, in that regard, we haven't even officially seen any of their new console's tech, have we? Can you really criticize them for not making a sufficient upgrade with their new console based solely on some rumors and not having seen it demonstrated for yourself. I say let's wait for E3 or whenever it is that they show what their new console can do in action before claiming for sure that its not a sufficient upgrade or not.

Also, the technology upgrade doesn't have to be in the graphics department (in that regard, how much better did the Wii really look than the Gamecube in terms of graphics?). The upgraded tech could be in the form of how you play (like improved motion controls, touch-screen controller, and other peripherals that could add some potential creativity to gameplay). Also its not just graphics that is an indicator of upgraded hardware. Its also how much processing power it has, like how much stuff a game can handle on screen at one time, how smart they can make the AI, and so on.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Well, in that regard, we haven't even officially seen any of their new console's tech, have we? Can you really criticize them for not making a sufficient upgrade with their new console based solely on some rumors and not having seen it demonstrated for yourself. I say let's wait for E3 or whenever it is that they show what their new console can do in action before claiming for sure that its not a sufficient upgrade or not.

Also, the technology upgrade doesn't have to be in the graphics department (in that regard, how much better did the Wii really look than the Gamecube in terms of graphics?). The upgraded tech could be in the form of how you play (like improved motion controls, touch-screen controller, and other peripherals that could add some potential creativity to gameplay). Also its not just graphics that is an indicator of upgraded hardware. Its also how much processing power it has, like how much stuff a game can handle on screen at one time, how smart they can make the AI, and so on.

You're right, at this point it's really all hearsay. But I'm fairly certain we have to prepare for a console generation focused more on just power. The rumors for the Wii-U that I have been following on places like NeoGAF seem to point towards a jump similar to the one from the 32 bit gen to last gen and less like the previous jump. Which is perfectly fine to me. I've longed since stopped caring about graphics once we reached this:




Can they still improve on that? Sure. But a huge jump in power isn't really needed for it.

[Foggle]

Heavy Kinect focus, improved XBLA, and whatever new gimmick they have, I'm sure. Also, Halo and Gears. I don't know what they're going to do, but it has to be based more on just raw power as that doesn't really mean much anymore.

But they could do all that on the 360, and I think fans would appreciate it. The Kinect is pointless right now because it has one good game and cool optional features in two others. XBLA could be beefed up through firmware updates or something. If they actually took the time to support their current console, they'd establish better brand notoriety for when their next system comes out. Which would be great from a business standpoint for Microsoft, and great for the people who have stuck with them after all this time.

Man, there hasn't even been a single screenshot of an actual Wii-U game yet. We don't even know how powerful the thing really is and won't until E3.

But... what? I could swear I saw a video of Aliens: Colonial Marines and a few other games running on the Wii-U... Looked almost as good as PC footage.

But I mean, what would pure tech really do at this point? Make game worlds bigger? How does that add to the game other than just putting in more space? Make graphics prettier? The Wii proved that no one really cares about graphics anymore. 1080p and 60fps? They could do that this gen and they don't. While that stuff is nice, it doesn't really change anything.

60 FPS makes a sizable difference in my opinion. But you're right.

For example, what do you think COD next gen is going to be? DOOM-easque labyrinths with branching paths and hidden caches? It's going to be COD3 (a game two gens old) with prettier graphics and online multiplayer. At that point, what is even the reason to make a next gen game?

There are still people out there who want to make good games with huge worlds and lots of content. CD Projekt RED. Eidos Montreal. Gearbox Software. Croteam. Bethesda (arguably). Crytek (well, maybe not anymore). They are all being held back by the mentality of Activision, EA, UbiSoft, etc. that gaming is no longer about pushing boundaries. I don't just mean in graphics. I mean in the kinds of experiences we can have. Newer specs don't just make realistic graphics possible... they make levels with 1000s of enemies on screen at once possible. They make a living, breathing game world possible. They make the ability to play one game five different ways possible. They make 4-player split-screen co-op with no lag at 60 FPS possible.

In 1998, Baldur's Gate was released. It proved that video games could be immersive, deep, and full of choices on a humongous scale. In 2000, Deus Ex was released. It proved that the same thing could be done in a different setting with full 3D environments.

It's 2012. Gaming still hasn't evolved past the level of the original Deus Ex. Last year's Human Revolution and The Witcher 2 proved that the industry could get back on the right track, but why has it taken so long? It's not about the graphics; it's about experiences that you can't find anywhere else. And if the tech starts stagnating like this, and the developers and publishers continue not giving a fuck, video games will never reach those heights promised over a decade ago.

[gunswordfist]

His reviews are among the worst I've ever seen. Off the top of my head:

Killzone 3 - 10/10
Modern Warfare 3 - 9.5/10
The Witcher 2 - 6/10
Vanquish - 5/10
Mario Kart 7 - 5/10
Sonic Colors - 4.5/10
Assassin's Creed 2 - 4.5/10
Final Fantasy 13 - 3/10 (as much as I hate this game, it's not that bad)
Duke Nukem Forever - 2/10 (and the above goes double for Duke)

The worst part is that the entire Dtoid userbase constantly fellates him and will immediately start insulting games (without playing them) if he thinks they're bad. And while he may pretend that 4-6 are not bad scores, he will still describe the games as shit. He actually does just that in his Sonic Colors review.

That Assassin's Creed 2 score is just offense.

[gunswordfist]

Ah sweet, a new Xbox. I can't wait for them to be the best console for a 2nd generation in a row.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Heavy Kinect focus, improved XBLA, and whatever new gimmick they have, I'm sure. Also, Halo and Gears. I don't know what they're going to do, but it has to be based more on just raw power as that doesn't really mean much anymore.

But they could do all that on the 360, and I think fans would appreciate it. The Kinect is pointless right now because it has one good game and cool optional features in two others. XBLA could be beefed up through firmware updates or something. If they actually took the time to support their current console, they'd establish better brand notoriety for when their next system comes out. Which would be great from a business standpoint for Microsoft, and great for the people who have stuck with them after all this time.

I don't care for Kinect much either, but it made Microsoft a profit. So that's probably where they're going to keep aiming their efforts. Heck, remember the last two E3s? It's pretty obvious to see where they're aiming with it.

Man, there hasn't even been a single screenshot of an actual Wii-U game yet. We don't even know how powerful the thing really is and won't until E3.

But... what? I could swear I saw a video of Aliens: Colonial Marines and a few other games running on the Wii-U... Looked almost as good as PC footage.

That might have been based on Wii-U specs, but the final hardware hasn't been shown off yet.

For example, what do you think COD next gen is going to be? DOOM-easque labyrinths with branching paths and hidden caches? It's going to be COD3 (a game two gens old) with prettier graphics and online multiplayer. At that point, what is even the reason to make a next gen game?

There are still people out there who want to make good games with huge worlds and lots of content. CD Projekt RED. Eidos Montreal. Gearbox Software. Croteam. Bethesda (arguably). Crytek (well, maybe not anymore). They are all being held back by the mentality of Activision, EA, UbiSoft, etc. that gaming is no longer about pushing boundaries. I don't just mean in graphics. I mean in the kinds of experiences we can have. Newer specs don't just make realistic graphics possible... they make levels with 1000s of enemies on screen at once possible. They make a living, breathing game world possible. They make the ability to play one game five different ways possible. They make 4-player split-screen co-op with no lag at 60 FPS possible.

In 1998, Baldur's Gate was released. It proved that video games could be immersive, deep, and full of choices on a humongous scale. In 2000, Deus Ex was released. It proved that the same thing could be done in a different setting with full 3D environments.

It's 2012. Gaming still hasn't evolved past the level of the original Deus Ex. Last year's Human Revolution and The Witcher 2 proved that the industry could get back on the right track, but why has it taken so long? It's not about the graphics; it's about experiences that you can't find anywhere else. And if the tech starts stagnating like this, and the developers and publishers continue not giving a fuck, video games will never reach those heights promised over a decade ago.

I'm not disputing any of this at all. But Dues Ex was possible on PS2 hardware and nothing else has tried to better it on PS360 hardware. The bigger issue here are the developers. Why we got Crysis 2 the way it was when Crysis 1 (even though downported the game is there intact) ran on freaking Games On Demand pretty much shows that its the developer's decisions holding everything back. And my COD example could very easily have become a reality if they would have went even further in the GoldenEye 007 direction, but shallow movie games are easier, so that's what they do.

Crytek, Gearbox, and the others are all making games for the Wii-U which probably means that the expansiveness you're looking for is still there and still possible. If the developers take advantage of the actual hardware this time instead of just making glorified movies, which we easily could have had this gen but didn't, then we could easily have something like the Witcher 2 made for consoles.

But I mean, offering the same gameplay but with more space, smarter enemies, and more of them doesn't really make anything better. This requires the developers to think outside of the box. Super Mario Sunshine and Super Mario Galaxy were possible on almost the same hardware, for instance, yet both are platformers with VERY different goals and approaches. The same with Wind Waker and Skyward Sword. Nintendo knew that people didn't just want the same thing, so they did it differently.

It's all about the execution. You can be revolutionary without bleeding edge tech. People blame consoles for dumbing games down, but Deus Ex was very possible on the PS2 yet the developers chose to dumb it down for the sequel. Same thing with BioWare and Dragon Age.

It's not the tech, it's in the ambition.

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

Ah sweet, a new Xbox. I can't wait for them to be the best console for a 2nd generation in a row.

Oh yeah, that's right, you like the pretend that the Wii doesn't exist.

[gunswordfist]

Ah sweet, a new Xbox. I can't wait for them to be the best console for a 2nd generation in a row.

Oh yeah, that's right, you like the pretend that the Wii doesn't exist.

Yep, I stopped liking motion sensoring years ago.

[Spark Of Spirit]

Ah sweet, a new Xbox. I can't wait for them to be the best console for a 2nd generation in a row.

Oh yeah, that's right, you like the pretend that the Wii doesn't exist.

Yep, I stopped liking motion sensoring years ago.

You're going to have a grand old time this gen. 

[Dr. Ensatsu-ken]

But I mean, offering the same gameplay but with more space, smarter enemies, and more of them doesn't really make anything better.

I'm going to have to disagree with you on that one point. Smarter AI makes a BIG difference in gameplay and its something which I fully appreciate if a developer pulls it off well. It makes a simplistic game into a deep and challenging one that actually requires active player thought and strategy. That is to say, it essentially changes the entire style of gameplay (and for the better, IMO). If Halo or F.E.A.R. didn't have intelligent AI, they would basically just be inferior versions of Call of Duty (as in running out, aiming, shooting enemies, and then popping behind some cover for a few seconds and then rinsing and repeating the same tactic throughout the entire game). However because those games have intelligent AI (with Halo its only on the harder difficulties, though), they are played in a completely different kind of way, and actually force you to think about the situation at hand and make good decisions about which weapons to use and how to utilize your environment to your advantage. That's just one example, but the general idea is that smarter enemies is definitely a big deal in terms of changing gameplay, and as someone who loves a GOOD challenge (rather than cheap design and BS difficulty), its one of the things that I hope most next-gen games support. I agree with you on your other points, though.