CHYUII on 26 December 2007
| Sqrl said: I think you are both missing the point a bit actually. Consider this: "We do want games to become more and more visually impressive but we also want them to become more and more intuitively interactive. " And in that one statement I have just made there lies the key to this generation. Think about the technological path of both graphics and interactivity. Now ask yourself the question which one of these has been focused on almost to the complete exclusion of the other. Which one of these is pushing the limits of technology and which one of these could greatly benefit from new changes and could easily be coupled with existing technology to make leaps and bounds improvements? The answers should be fairly obvious and if they are then you are probably the sort of person that understands why the Wii is successfull even if you don't like it for those reasons (or at all). This whole generation can be boiled down to these basic principles. The PS3 and 360 were pushing the graphical envelope and the result is that their technology is ahead of the "cost effective curve". This is of course why Nintendo's decision to focus on the underdeveloped area of interactivity has been so successful. Because not only are they on the correct side of the "cost effect curve" but they are also showing major and tangible improvements. Again some may not agree but the sales say that most people do agree. In any case both of these are important aspects to pushed and it is not a bad thing that Sony and MS want to push the graphical envelope. It is however a bad thing that the pushed themselves beyond the curve to achieve it. I look forward to when consoles are pushing the envelope on interactivity and graphics together because that will truly be an amazing generation, I can only hope it will have neural interfaces as well. |
DANG YOU SQUIRRELS ARE SO DEEP! PREACH YOU DRUNKEN SQUIRREL, PREACH!!
