As for the Wii innovation.....well,lets just do a google search on the name XaviX...you will see who really invented this motion control "innovation"

Diomedes1976 said: As for the Wii innovation.....well,lets just do a google search on the name XaviX...you will see who really invented this motion control "innovation"

As for the PS3's power.....well, lets just do a google search on the name Apple...you will see who really invented this graphical "power".

 

Wii has refined it and made it more fun and intuititve.  'Nuff said.

ooh--nice one rol

It will be interesting to see what Sony and MS do for their next consoles, yet more power or do something different like Nintendo have.

MrPickles said: Diomedes1976 said: As for the Wii innovation.....well,lets just do a google search on the name XaviX...you will see who really invented this motion control "innovation" As for the PS3's power.....well, lets just do a google search on the name Apple...you will see who really invented this graphical "power".

It certainly wasn't Apple, I was working on GUI based systems some time before the Mac was first released. People talk about MS "stealing" Windows from Apple when in fact Apple "stole" it from Xerox and not only the ideas, they took many of it's employees too.

ultraslick said: If this thread creates the perception, that to be the true "next gen console" means to have the best sales, then yes Nintendo is the most next gen of all. But Maybe people were and still are simply not ready for the "new generation" IMO Microsoft jumped the gun, causing Sony to do the same. IMO Sony and Microsoft have taken gaming in the right direction. Fact of the matter is though, that direction is too complicated and/or expensive for most people to jump on board with. IMO An evolution or progression of gaming has occurred with Sony and Microsoft. IMO Nintendo has just created a PS2 with a parallel control scheme at a comparatively low price point. The masses love this because they pay attention to marketing, and enjoy having more money. And who doesn't love Mario? You ask- was Sony left in last generation? The answer is No, they (and Microsoft)have created a new generation The rest of the world was left in last generation. with the wii. True innovation will never be accepted (at first) on a grand scale. Enjoy your Nintendo you Sheep. But know if the world ended tomorrow, you will have to die like everyone else knowing that you made the choice to own a wii. I hope you all choke

Yet the Wii has introduced something new for me - for the first time since i've been with her the wife has allowed me to have a console in the living room (well she moved the GC into the living room when Zedla WW was being played), out of a PS2, Xbox, GC, 360 and Wii this is a first.  She now also buys games herself and i'm sure mine is not the only household this is happening in.My point is this gen and all gens following after that will be decided by it's sales and popularity and all the extra DVD players or 6 spare controllers in the world aint gonna change that. 

 

lvader said: MrPickles said: Diomedes1976 said: As for the Wii innovation.....well,lets just do a google search on the name XaviX...you will see who really invented this motion control "innovation" As for the PS3's power.....well, lets just do a google search on the name Apple...you will see who really invented this graphical "power". It certainly wasn't Apple, I was working on GUI based systems some time before the Mac was first released. People talk about MS "stealing" Windows from Apple when in fact Apple "stole" it from Xerox and not only the ideas, they took many of it's employees too.

For sure. Hasn't anyone seen that movie about Bill Gates and Microsoft. It's actually quite an awesome movie, makes Bill look like a sociopath but i guess he was ok with that.

Legend11 said: You can have great gameplay and great graphics in the same game so why do some people seem to think this generation is about gameplay vs. graphics? Is it impossible to have games that have both on the 360 and/or PS3? No

You miss the point entirely and I think you want to so you feel you have a good point to make. The question of Gameplay vs. Graphics involves the emphasis that developers or hardware manufacturers place on one or the other. Companies who think they can just cash in on graphics and make a killing like Sony, Microsoft, Eidos, Square, etc and rehash the same gameplay engine designs every generation or companies who might put a bit more into using unique input or trying to make games something beyond graphics like Ubisoft, Nintendo, Capcom, EA, etc have done a bit.

Sure, we know a single game can have both. We aren't stupid. Do you really think we are that stupid to argue that a single game cannot have both? Look at Yoshi's Island for it's time, Perfect Dark for it's time, GTA III for it's time, Oblivion, Prince of Persia for it's time, Resident Evil 4 for it's time, Zelda OoT for it's time, etc. We have played them all and know they are instant classics, but not all games are instant classics, are they? That's because companies are using one thing or another in hopes of it catching the wave.

All the Medal of Honors that spend a little of extra time upping graphics yet offer the same experience time and time again. Madden, Halo, Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell sequels, Metal Gear Solid sequels, etc. They all simply empress on graphics as a primary wow factor. That is what is in question. What makes a new person want to play that game over the games of the past if it isn't that "complete game?" Classics are few and far between, but cash ins are a dime a dozen. We know these companies aren't going to stop making mediocre games, so what should be their cash-in for the game industry? Graphics? or Gameplay? Wii has a lot of wow in the gameplay area by default, but we all know many Wii games suck. When are developers going to open their eyes and put more effort into Wii games and take that default wow to the next level like in Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Resident Evil 4 Wii, Umbrella Chronicles, etc?

Most of us are veteran gamers here. This isn't an amateur gamefaqs board or other clones of the like, because the newbies and most young gamers don't care enough about the industry to look at industry sales. They don't even know that sales affect what we will be playing and how we will be playing it in the next few years, like we do. Seriously, you shouldn't insult all of our intelligences just to make an empty fanboyish statement. This is NOT an amateur gaming community, and you guys have been here long enough to know it. Try contributing something of more substance to topics that make you cringe, it might help you grow a little as a person.

 

 

clandecyon said:    You miss the point entirely and I think you want to so you feel you have a good point to make.  The question of Gameplay vs. Graphics involves the emphasis that developers or hardware manufacturers place on one or the other.  Companies who think they can just cash in on graphics and make a killing like Sony, Microsoft, Eidos, Square, etc or companies who might put a bit more into using better input like Ubisoft, Nintendo, Capcom, EA, etc have done a bit.  Sure, we know a single game can have both.  We aren't stupid.  Do you really think we are that stupid to argue that a single game cannot have both?  Look at Yoshi's Island for it's time, Perfect Dark for it's time, GTA III for it's time, Oblivion, Prince of Persia for it's time, Resident Evil 4 for it's time, Zelda OoT for it's time, etc.  We have played them all and know they are instant classics, but not all games are instant classics, are they? That's because companies are using one thing or another in hopes of it catching the wave.  All the Medal of Honors that spend a little of extra time upping graphics yet offer the same experience time and time again.  Madden, Halo,  Ghost Recon, Splinter Cell sequels, Metal Gear Solid sequels, etc.  They all simply empress on graphics as a primary wow factor.  That is what is in question.  What makes a new person want to play that game over the games of the past if it isn't that "complete game."  Classics are few and far between, but cash ins are a dime a dozen.  What is and should be the cash in for the game industry?  Graphics?  or Gameplay?  Wii has a lot of wow in the gameplay area by default, but we all know many Wii games suck.  When are developers going to open their eyes and put more effort into Wii games and take that default wow to the next level like in Mario Galaxy, Wii Sports, Resident Evil 4 Wii, Umbrella Chronicles, etc? Most of us are veteran gamers here.  This isn't an amateur gamefaqs board or other clones of the like, because the newbie and most young gamers don't care enough about the industry to look at industry sales.  Seriously, you shouldn't insult all of our intelligences just to make an empty fanboyish statement.  Try contributing something of more substance to topics that make you cringe, it might help you grow a little as a person.

I'm not sure that's as big a factor with the PS3/360 game development when compared to cost.  Those two machines are very expensive to develop for due to higher resolutions, multi-threaded CPUs/GPUs, etc.  Some estimates go as high as $30-40m to create a AAA title on those machines, where the previous generation estimates were $5-10m.

 

I agree that some companies are just trying to "cash-in" with something flashy or trendy, but I believe most companies are trying to keep the costs under control until this generation is more mature and the software sales can more easily support the bigger budgets. 

crumas2 said: clandecyon said: That's because companies are using one thing or another in hopes of it catching the wave. I'm not sure that's as big a factor with the PS3/360 game development when compared to cost. Those two machines are very expensive to develop for due to higher resolutions, multi-threaded CPUs/GPUs, etc. Some estimates go as high as $30-40m to create a AAA title on those machines, where the previous generation estimates were $5-10m.   I agree that some companies are just trying to "cash-in" with something flashy or trendy, but I believe most companies are trying to keep the costs under control until this generation is more mature and the software sales can more easily support the bigger budgets.

I'm sure that is also a big influence on why they do spend so much time on graphics and aren't "as" concerned with gameplay at least on those systems. They know that the PS3/360 audience (moreso PS3 and online for 360) is more concerned about visuals as they put the money out for it, so regardless if they put more effort in the controls or not, they still risk alienating the audience that the system has and they are developing for if they don't concentrate on graphics to the point that it is better than the last million seller. And regardless of how much they make on these first gen titles, they are going to feel that all future games will have to be based heavily on graphics for those systems and be better than their last effort or they will lose the attention of their audience. It is much easier for these companies to just copy/paste gameplay code and get to work on the real selling points, graphics.

I'm willing to bet as well that they have AWESOME ideas to make the graphics even better, but they hold off, partly to get the product out the door, but to also leave something to add on for the next project. Some companies I'm sure are almost afraid to make a game perfect, because they think they will run out of ideas and that that perfect game will hinder sales for their future potentially mediocre games; plus they have to get the game finished so they can eat to live to make the next project. There is a lot of pressure on the 360/PS3 developers to concentrate on the graphics, one mistake could cost them millions, which even further widens the gap in the debate.