@ GGE

I currently own a Wii and an Xbox 360. Im playing SMG which offers a fresh and innovative way of playing games. At the same time, I'm playing Mass Effect and Bioshock, one of which offers a storytelling and dialogue mode beyond anything remotely possible last gen, and both of which offer an immersive experience that is greatly enhanced by high-definition graphics, and in the case of Bioshock, highly advanced AI and water effects that wouldn't be possible on the Wii. Im also playing Gears of War online and Halo 3 in multiplayer battles the PS2 and Xbox could only imagine.

So really I think all the next gen consoles bring something fresh to the table, except perhaps for the PS3.

they bring graphics and AI starcraft, but that can only take the market so far, especially when these graphics and AI come as such a price tag.

Starcraft, its not so much the games in question, its what the companies behind the consoles are doing to the market. If the best game ever made can be put on the 360/PS3, that still doesn't justify what they're doing to the market and third party developers. The game libraries and the games in them are the symptom of the problem, not the problem itself. And the problem is the radical reworking and destabilization of the market's economy to suit Sony and Microsoft's standard of gaming.

Basically, I applaud the Wii's innovation, and I think the motion control is something that will be hardwired into the next generation of gaming. I also think it's widened the market which can only be a good thing. But at the same time, I will be very sad the day console manufacturers give up on pushing technological boundaries in terms of computing power that can enhance scale, AI, beauty and frame rates.

Going over your recent posts in this thread, I feel I should point out that Mark Rein (VP of Epic) recently (like yesterday) came out and said that consoles are killing the PC gaming market. Therefore you have this whole thing around the wrong way. Likewise, you are incorrect if you meant to imply that the Xbox 360 and PS3 are moving towards the PC in terms of the amount of FPS content. You forget that we are at the beginning of a console cycle, where casual games are far from abundant and the market is still largely being carried by the hard-core.

Even with the Wii we have seen, the majority of games bought are pack-ins traditional Nintendo hardcore games and movie-games. Give it time.

 

Edit:  And even now, the amount of RPG's, racers, sandbox titles and casual/family titles that are released or on the horizon for the 360 is really quite astonishing. 

starcraft said: @ GGE I currently own a Wii and an Xbox 360. Im playing SMG which offers a fresh and innovative way of playing games. At the same time, I'm playing Mass Effect and Bioshock, one of which offers a storytelling and dialogue mode beyond anything remotely possible last gen, and both of which offer an immersive experience that is greatly enhanced by high-definition graphics, and in the case of Bioshock, highly advanced AI and water effects that wouldn't be possible on the Wii. Im also playing Gears of War online and Halo 3 in multiplayer battles the PS2 and Xbox could only imagine. So really I think all the next gen consoles bring something fresh to the table, except perhaps for the PS3.

 Sorry but any innovation related to storytelling and dialogue modes can be done on the previous gen or even the gen before that.  There's no need for massive horsepower to set up storylines.  You're attributing way too much to horsepower and not enough to game design.  PC's has always have tons more power, do you see any amazing storyline that can't be done on a console?  

Too many people associate all the experience and enjoyment they have to graphics rather than good game design.  People were having tons of fun playing goldeneye multiplayer way before gears of war and halo3 online. 

Its naive to think the Wii represents a throwing in of the towel of all technological or graphical exploration. The Wii is not advocating a standard of yesterday's graphics for all gaming to come, the Wii is merely a symptom of a generation where the economics are not in favor of pushing these technologies yet.

If pushing these technological boundaries as the 360/PS3 are is hurting the market so much then clearly the market and economy behind it isn't ready for it and that's what Nintendo saw. You like many gamers have mistaken the Wii's modest abilities for a new strategy for cutting costs when in fact its the only console this generation which has adhered to the standards of cost vs capabilities that have dictated the system specs of every console of every generation before this.

The 360/Ps3 are not true next gen if the generation can't afford or support them. Every generation before this we have accepted there is a leap ready for us in graphics and technology, yet now that we've reached a plateau (which the Wii represents) its all too easy to just assume Nintendo gave up trying to compete while the 360/PS3 are "true" Next gen.

There is more to the market than just the games.

@ darconi

Do you honestly believe that things like scope, scale, environmental immersiveness and sound don't contribute to one's ability to tell a story? Or that RAM has anything to do with Mass Effect's dynamic dialogue system? Bioware came out and said they were glad they had the power of the 360 to work with, because they couldn't quite get the dialogue system they wanted out of the original xbox.

I loved Goldeneye, but go back and play it again and check out the enemy AI (or lack thereof) and then compare it to Halo 3 and Gears of War. In GE harder difficulties meant enemies have more powerful bullets and can take more hits. With the power of the 360, Gears expands on this by introducing enemy cover systems, co-operative enemy flanking, and hit-recognition.

Girl Gamer Elite said: Its naive to think the Wii represents a throwing in of the towel of all technological or graphical exploration. The Wii is not advocating a standard of yesterday's graphics for all gaming to come, the Wii is merely a symptom of a generation where the economics are not in favor of pushing these technologies yet. If pushing these technological boundaries as the 360/PS3 are is hurting the market so much then clearly the market and economy behind it isn't ready for it and that's what Nintendo saw. You like many gamers have mistaken the Wii's modest abilities for a new strategy for cutting costs when in fact its the only console this generation which has adhered to the standards of cost vs capabilities that have driven consoles' system specs every generaiton before. The 360/Ps3 are not true next gen if the generation can't afford or support them. Every generation before this we have accepted there is a leap ready for us in graphics and technology, yet now that we've reached a plateau (which the Wii represents) its all too easy to just assume Nintendo gave up trying to compete while the 360/PS3 are "true" Next gen. There is more to the market than just the games.

I said none of this GGE.  Nintendo have made a profit on every console they have made, including the graphically equipped Gamecube, I certainly don't believe they 'threw in the towel' this generation.  Nor do I believe that this generation cannot support the 360/PS3.  There was plenty of bitching about the PS2's pricepoint back in the day, and I'm sure there will be plenty of bitching about the PS4's price point as well.  And yet the PS2 has shifted 120 million units.  Your argument also ignores the fact that both MS and Sony have recently reached profitability, and will likely keep their consoles on the market at profitability for another 3-5 years at least.

In the end those are all superficial aspects of gameplay Starcraft, and all things that can be explored later generations when it is economic and feasable. Right now pushing such aspects is problematic and justifying the dead end direction of the market for the sake of these minor improvements in gaming is just foolish.

Your argument is to the same affect as saying, "Who cares if Heroine is bad for you, it feels so good!"

To translate, yes these graphics, AI, and environments are wonderful and wanted by all gamers, but are they worth the cost they're forcing the market to pay? If we wanted to, we could have had 6th gen graphics back in the 5th gen, but it would of been at a terrible cost to the consumer and market. Just because you can have something and push boundaries doesn't mean you should.

And yes, both Sony and MS have reached profitablity, but not by much and considering Microsoft has 7 years of lossess and Sony (the financial equivalent of) over 10 years of losses to make up for, that's not really saying much. The real question here is are the third party developers and the market as a whole reaching profitability on their consoles? That's been my argument all along.

@GGE

You are ignoring a very simple fact! The market is HAPPY to pay for the graphics. All three console manufacturers are at profitability, all have successfully made price cuts, and rather than having to wait until 2012 for graphics, AI, and environmental scale the PC will long have rendered redundant, we get them now. The 360 is selling, high-budget games on the 360 are selling! The Wii has only 4 third-party games that have breached a million and of those, two are shooters, and two are available on other platforms, with better graphics and online features.