Graphical Next Gen?
If you check out IGN Cube, there's a link to a IGN Live video. This video has one person (the Epic Games head, don't know the name) say that it isn't the controller that changes games, it is the graphics.
His claims is that graphics allow developers the ability to do things on-screen. It allows Half Life 2 the ability to have better physics, it gives Dynasty Warriors more enemies to do battle with, and gives a better sense of speed for racing games.
You know, he is right-to a point. Control is just as important as graphics. The best example is Mario 64. It is a game that just can't be done without a control stick or something that can sense 360 degrees of movement.
Goldeneye wasn't a case where it was graphics that wowed people, but the control. The ability to zoom in and more precisely aim made it much better then other first person shooters on any console.
The problem that me and many others worry about the PS3 and X-Box 360 is that there is no change. Thus far, all the gameplay we have seen can be done on current consoles, albiet lower graphics. Even things which might not be able to do on current consoles (ie 99 Nights), is it that much of an enhancement? Is going up against 100 enemies different then 30?
There is definatly an additional problem: companies don't have then incentive to do things differently. Just look at the amount of non-sequel/non-license games out there. The only incentive developers have is to just do things better, not differently. Doing things differently means taking a chance, and publishers don't want to take a chance. Look at the PSP, mostly ports of some sort.
The Revolution won't improve that situation pernamently, but it does change it at least temporarily. Changing the controller is taking a chance, but it certainly does more to change gaming into something new rather then making a better clock.
His claims is that graphics allow developers the ability to do things on-screen. It allows Half Life 2 the ability to have better physics, it gives Dynasty Warriors more enemies to do battle with, and gives a better sense of speed for racing games.
You know, he is right-to a point. Control is just as important as graphics. The best example is Mario 64. It is a game that just can't be done without a control stick or something that can sense 360 degrees of movement.
Goldeneye wasn't a case where it was graphics that wowed people, but the control. The ability to zoom in and more precisely aim made it much better then other first person shooters on any console.
The problem that me and many others worry about the PS3 and X-Box 360 is that there is no change. Thus far, all the gameplay we have seen can be done on current consoles, albiet lower graphics. Even things which might not be able to do on current consoles (ie 99 Nights), is it that much of an enhancement? Is going up against 100 enemies different then 30?
There is definatly an additional problem: companies don't have then incentive to do things differently. Just look at the amount of non-sequel/non-license games out there. The only incentive developers have is to just do things better, not differently. Doing things differently means taking a chance, and publishers don't want to take a chance. Look at the PSP, mostly ports of some sort.
The Revolution won't improve that situation pernamently, but it does change it at least temporarily. Changing the controller is taking a chance, but it certainly does more to change gaming into something new rather then making a better clock.
posted by SeanM at 5:51 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home