Home Forums General Discussion Next Gen Console Winner ?

Welcome to our forums. These forums were active from 2003-2014. We have now decided to close them down, but will leave them here as an archive.

Remember you can send us feedback, news, jobs and content ideas by clicking here.

If you're really stuck for time, email news@gamedevelopers.ie.

You can also follow us on Twitter @gamedev_ie 

 

 

This topic contains 35 replies, has 14 voices, and was last updated by  gizmo 12 years, 6 months ago.

  • Author
    Posts
  • #4182

    You There
    Participant

    Any one looking forward to getting hold on the new Xbox 360 this year.
    But which console do you think is better.
    Which console will you be buying ?
    Reports from E3 say each company is going a different direction on promoting there next gen consoles Microsoft is consentrating more on its live and online gaming. While Sony is concentrating on pure performance.
    Nintendo are relying on pure gaming each console has its ups and downs but will it just be another money venture and are we going to get nothing but shiny new sequels. :(

    I really like the way the new nintendo revolution is backwards compatible with the gamecube and you can download all 20 years yes 20 years of old N64, Snes, Nes games and play and keep them Good old retro. Im hoping nintendo will do well and there saying there new joypad will revalutionise gaming thats why there keeping it a secret :shock: What do you think will win the Console War :?:

  • #21664

    JamesHunter
    Participant

    Personally I`m waiting til the PS3 comes out, I don`t mind waiting a few months til a better and more powerful console arrives.

  • #21665

    peter_b
    Participant

    probably in the long run ill get all. nice to have options.. but ill pick a 360 up round launch time, i want to play perfect dark zero.

    As for the nintendo, i dunno i reckon they seem like they’re already admiting defeat in the next gen console market because they havent really released much specs, leading to the suspicion its going to be a very modest console.

    Also from the size of the thing i suspect the power under the hood wont be anything near ms or sony. D’ont get me wrong power isnt the most important thing, games are, but nintendo better have something up there sleave besides dragging mario\luigi and the rest of the biy’s out for another rendition of an old game. I admit the 20 years download of games sounds cool, but sounds like a ploy to drag every last inch out of their IP.

    I suspect nintendo are going to focus more attention on sustaining their 94% of the market on handhelds, and guard against sony. This is already evident in that they are releasing a smaller verison of the gba again (bout size of a mobile phone), churning out a steady supply of ds games, with wide appeal.

  • #21666

    r_mc_gowan
    Participant

    im really looking forward to the revolution. it will definitly have the power, but what i think is more important is the gameplay. no point having amazing super powered machines, with really horrible games on them. and aswell, the revolution will have online play, online retro game downloads, possible linkage to ds, possibilities are endless. i will also probably get a ps3, but im staying away from the xbox 360. :)

  • #21667

    kyotokid
    Keymaster

    Sony.

    (Nintendo are not in the next gen battle)

    :)

  • #21668

    You There
    Participant

    ye power isnt everything look at the ps2 it still has untapped power but about 300 shit games no decent exclusives who wants to play shitty ea sequals. I hope the ps3 dosnt go down the same raod all that power and they cant use it its good to see all consoles going wireless and online from the start one thing is for certain the GAMERS win. although a bit more overtime in work to pay for all these consoles :( lol

  • #21669

    peter_b
    Participant

    ye power isnt everything look at the ps2 it still has untapped power but about 300 shit games no decent exclusives who wants to play shitty ea sequals. I hope the ps3 dosnt go down the same raod all that power and they cant use it its good to see all consoles going wireless and online from the start one thing is for certain the GAMERS win. although a bit more overtime in work to pay for all these consoles :( lol[/quote:539ab7e1e2]

    main problem with tapping the power on the ps2 was that they made the bloody thing a nightmare to develop for. Apparently sony have learned their lesson and say now its easier to develop for. In fact didnt they have some veteran programmer verify to the public at E3 that it was indeed easy to program for or was that ms?

  • #21670

    You There
    Participant

    hopefully but still the other problem most of the ps3 games shown at e3 were shitty sequals eg. killzone 2, metal gear solid 4 although the final fantasy 7 tech demo was amazing but at the end of the day its only a port from the original. Any other game shown is also o the other next gen consoles.

  • #21674

    gizmo
    Participant

    I find it funny that all the Sony fan boys who complained when the more powerful Xbox arrived that “power isnt everything” are now taking the opposite approach and shouting about how its SO much more powerful than the Xbox 360 and hence better….

    I’ll tell you my answer in 12months. :D

  • #21682

    lk_
    Participant

    I find it funny that all the Sony fan boys who complained when the more powerful Xbox arrived that “power isnt everything” are now taking the opposite approach and shouting about how its SO much more powerful than the Xbox 360 and hence better….

    I’ll tell you my answer in 12months. :D[/quote:8eb6ac8a71]

    Equally so but I find it funny how the Xbox fan boys who shouted about how powerful the xbox was are now saying power isnt everything :lol:

  • #21686

    GizmoDX
    Participant

    read an interview with miyamoto where he said nintendo are trying to cater for the players who don’t want to spend tens of hours on a game, plus i think i heard that the 1st party retro titles will be free and youll have to pay for the 3rd party ones and i’d say there are a few that won’t be released.

    i’ll probably get all 3 at some stage but the 360 will be my first purchase then the revolution. I bought a ps2 first this time around but i don’t even buy games for it anymore.

  • #21689

    lk_
    Participant

    I just hope they offer more then just another Mario. But strangely enough I can’t get enough of Zelda…. Is there any speculation as to when the revolution will be released?

  • #21690

    GizmoDX
    Participant

    i heard 2007, in the uk i mean, hope its not that late.

  • #21691

    You There
    Participant

    Here are some info on ps3

    http://hardware.gamespot.com/x-15015-O-4-4

    Here is some info on Xbox 360

    http://hardware.gamespot.com/x-15016-O-4-4

    Here is some info on Nintendo Revolution

    http://hardware.gamespot.com/Nintendo-Revolution-15143-O-4-6

    Happy Reading :D This may help a bit

  • #21717

    gizmo
    Participant

    Equally so but I find it funny how the Xbox fan boys who shouted about how powerful the xbox was are now saying power isnt everything :lol:[/quote:042ce1f820]
    Hrm, the PS3 doesnt dominate in all the power stakes remember, only the CPU area. I find the inclusion of the embeded DRAM on the graphics card in the XBox extremely interesting and something which will REALLY benefit the machine when handling AA and filtering etc…

    Well thats the beauty of being impartial, I don’t get dragged up in the debates between people who dont know what they’re talking about, thankfully there doesnt seem to be many of those people are here! :D

  • #21722

    gus
    Participant

    Next Gen Console Winner?

    Probably f***ing EA…

    Unlikely to be the consumer, or developers.

    PC games look like getting more interesting again soon though, with the likes of AGEIA looking to move things on again to new territory.

  • #21727

    gizmo
    Participant

    Don’t rule Nintendo out yet…
    http://gamesradar.msn.co.uk/news/default.asp?pagetypeid=2&articleid=36071&subsectionid=1587
    What we all wanted to hear!

    Harrison then confirmed that past-gen, Nintendo-created titles will indeed be downloadable for free. [/quote:60da069a95]

    Well obviously the third party games may be a problem but at least now we have Zelda, Mario and Metroid for free! :D

  • #21732

    kyotokid
    Keymaster

    Nintendo ended its most recent fiscal year with its net profit skyrocketing 163% over the previous year. Next year, it expects to pull in another 75 billion yen in net profit; in comparison, Sony as an entire company (including the electronics division, games division, etc) expects to bring in 80 billion yen. And Nintendo only makes video games.

    Are we really supposed to believe Nintendo is struggling?[/quote:0d8b000b09]

    http://nintendoinsider.com/site/EEEZuAypVuTuOJPzyb.php

  • #21741

    gizmo
    Participant

    read an interview with miyamoto where he said nintendo are trying to cater for the players who don’t want to spend tens of hours on a game…[/quote:a2ce6c3a8b]
    Yea it was summerised on anandtech…

    “Of course, there are games, such as Halo or Grand Theft Auto, that are big and expansive. But if you’re not interested in spending that time with them, you’re not going to play,” he observed.

    “Rather than thinking ‘we have a new console, let’s make epic games’, I want [developers] to make more unique products.”[/quote:a2ce6c3a8b]
    To be honest I like “epic” games, they make me feel like my money was well spent plus you cant compare the “originality” of those dog training simulations on the DS to something with such an immersive story as say Baldur’s Gate. Again, I just feel Nintendo themselves will be serving a different audience with the Revolution, thats not however, discounting 3rd party developers and their aims for the console.

  • #21779

    cobi-7
    Participant

    I have read some info on game which will be avialable for the ps3 and xbox 360, however, i have not seen anything that will be released on nintendo’s revolution.

  • #21788

    omen
    Participant

    Read Miyamoto’s thing. Can’t believe the guy who did Zelda is saying modern games are too long….

  • #21789

    You There
    Participant

    Too long there not long enough i think companies are just half doing games. If there any good they make a sequel when they just could have finished the job in the first place ( HALO 2 ).

    Games should hace an average of 40 hours gameplay to get your moneys woeth out of them god knows we pay enough for them. :x

  • #21790

    cobi-7
    Participant

    True, however, modern games are seeking a much wider audience than they did 10 years ago.
    There are alot more people from all walks of life playing games now than ever before. Alot of people tend to be too busy for games now adays and developers are begining to see this.
    This is why the games are now alot shorter than they were to make them more playable for people whom just dont have the time.
    Imagine working 9-5 mon-fri everyweek. You come home, have dinner, spend time with the kids, off to bed then the same thing again the next day. And it is pretty much the same at weekends. So people try to get in an hour or two at the weekend if they can, this means that after 4 weeks the game would be complete, happy days.
    However, if the game was too long, it would just get tedious, you would have to get into it every week. Alot of the short games now are basically pick up and play and right now for the hectic lifestyle we all live by, its working.

  • #21791

    omen
    Participant

    And where your arguement falls down is in the fact that the long games are probably the biggest sellers. Zelda, Metroid, GTA, Final Fantasy, World of Warcraft, etc, etc.

  • #21792

    cobi-7
    Participant

    True, but i fear zelda is starting to slip, look at wind waker, that was way too short.

    I can agree that the longer games are the biggest sellers, but whose to say people actually found the time and played them?? Sure there were alot sold, but out of the type of people i mentioned, do you really think they complete any of these games? no.

  • #21794

    Skyclad
    Participant

    Oh come on Omen, just as there are long games that have sold really well, there are many short games what have sold just as well too.

    Also, shorter games are a more recent change, so taking a slew of old games as an example doesnt hold much merit either, and neither does taking MMO games, as they dont technically have an end.

    As has been noted previously, 80% (i think it was) of games arent finished, and, as I’ve argued before, this means that 80% of game creators are wasting their time creating content that will never be used. Why not make shorter games with better levels that more people will see rather than parade around content that the vast majority of the playing public dont want or will never see?

    Dave

  • #21796

    gizmo
    Participant

    Each to their own to be honest. It really depends on the type of game really. Look at Max Payne, that game was particulary short but it was so intense that I still walked away feeling satisfied. However to get the same satisfaction out of a game like Baldurs Gate I would have needed its ~80 hours gameplay. Both games will have their audiences and I can almost guarentee you that those people who rarely finish games would purchase a game knowing right well the investment it would require to finish.

  • #21799

    Idora
    Participant

    Oh come on Omen, just as there are long games that have sold really well, there are many short games what have sold just as well too.

    Also, shorter games are a more recent change, so taking a slew of old games as an example doesnt hold much merit either, and neither does taking MMO games, as they dont technically have an end.

    As has been noted previously, 80% (i think it was) of games arent finished, and, as I’ve argued before, this means that 80% of game creators are wasting their time creating content that will never be used. Why not make shorter games with better levels that more people will see rather than parade around content that the vast majority of the playing public dont want or will never see?[/quote:5a6dd0d15d]I’m in Dave’s camp on this one. Call of Duty was another massive seller that was ver short; MOH, even Halo were short

    btw, the statistic of incomplete games was 70% (as in only 30% of games that gop into dev, come out the other side – that the statistic you were talking about Dave?)

  • #21802

    Skyclad
    Participant

    I can almost guarentee you that those people who rarely finish games would purchase a game knowing right well the investment it would require to finish.[/quote:6e3b16de01]
    My sense would be that people do not consider buying a game in order to play only part of it. I know of noone who buys a book to read a particular chapter (excepting some academic texts), or an album for one song, or a dvd to watch the first 15 minutes. People who buy a game consciously or unconsciously expect to finish it.

    However, thats not quite the argument I’m trying to make. Presuming a set number of artists and designers can come up with 40 hours of gameplay. That same set of artists and designers could produce only 20 hours, but be able to take much more time to make sure that the gameplay and game world/setting are really top quality. More people will finish the game if it is 20 hours long, getting more bang per buck, and ending up with a more positive user experience of your game.

    Another way of looking at it – lets presume that a company has the staff to produce 20 hours of decent content. If they have to produce 40 before they release a game, the quality dropoff is going to be significant. People will enjoy the game less, wont finish it, and will end up with a less positive user experience of the game.

    Dave

  • #21803

    kyotokid
    Keymaster

    Beyond Good and Evil was the right length. Resident Evil 4 was also pretty spot on. Ivan like these games.

    MMOG’s – fuggeta about it.

    I will only play a few select games that take a long time to complete (Zelda :lol: )

  • #21804

    Skyclad
    Participant

    btw, the statistic of incomplete games was 70% (as in only 30% of games that gop into dev, come out the other side – that the statistic you were talking about Dave?)[/quote:c8d008f5b0]
    I was referring to the people who buy a (released) game and then dont finish it, which if I remember correctly is ~80%

  • #21810

    Greenbean
    Participant

    I think there’s a problem in that no-one wants to piss off the hardcore who are quite vocal and can influence game perception. So although it doesn’t make sense to make a 40 hour game when you could be making a 10%-50% more polished 20 hour game it tends to be one of those boxes that developers and publishers are supposed to tick. It’s considered better to be safe than sorry.

    All these things depend though. E.g. Rpgs get more flak for being 20 hours than an fps; 20 hours is less suitable to the rpg customer (e.g. lots of rpgs only really get going after 20 hours).

  • #21817

    Skyclad
    Participant

    I think there’s a problem in that no-one wants to piss off the hardcore who are quite vocal and can influence game perception.[/quote:ab1586ad52]

    Absolutely. It is necessary to build the game to a target audience, and each audience has different goals and aspirations. If someone is to make a complaint about my game though, I’d much rather it be ‘the game was too short’ than ‘i got bored half way through and quit’. That way, they are more likely to buy the sequal and expansion packs :)

    I also think a game can have quite a lot of ‘optional’ content, which can be designed for the hard core audience and which can be of a slightly lower quality then the more important aspect of progressing through the game. Hardcore players are far happier doing endless repetetive tasks just to get that 100% unlocked status.

    Dave

  • #21821

    omen
    Participant

    I didn’t say that was the definitive.
    I was just pointing out that long games sell and the fact that the person who said games were too long was the guy who did one of the longest games. Kind of ironic.

  • #21822

    Greenbean
    Participant

    I think Miyamoto has said before that he’d have liked to do more original titles, but has been locked into having to do a new mario and a new zelda every time a console is released. If zelda and the marios seem to be too long I’d put that down to expectations of those games; generated from a long time ago.

    But talking about modern games I reckon he’d like to try out new ip’s that don’t have to take an age to finish by the game, or ages to develop. I reckon Pikimin2 (sorry didn’t play the first one) was a good example of what Dave was talking about when he said have short games, but with extra (cheaper) aspects for the hardcore that take longer to complete.

  • #21823

    gizmo
    Participant

The forum ‘General Discussion’ is closed to new topics and replies.