Title: Where are all the next gen games?
Posted: October 05, 2009 (01:13 PM)
So as good as Modern Warfare is, as good as Mario Galaxy is, I don't call them truly "next gen" games. Why? Because they fail my "next gen" test, that's why.
Here's the test: If a game can be ported to a console in a previous generation and keep its core gameplay and overall design in place, it's not what I'm calling for the purposes of this piece a "next gen" game. Mario Galaxy was great, but really, it's a GameCube title with some star-shaking stuff thrown in. Modern Warfare? Amazing, but as the upcoming Wii port attests, it used the 360 and PS3 primarily for better graphics and sound. LittleBigPlanet? Another great game, but the PSP version shows the core experience could have been done on a PS2.
while Modern Warfare and Little Big Planet could be possible on a PS2 with the core gameplay intact. the experience just wouldn't be the same. Mario Galaxy could be ported to GameCube with the spherical worlds concept and no star-shaking but since the idea came to reality on the Wii and with it's tiny extra graphical muscle Mario Galaxy looks and plays better than Mario Sunshine ever did, i think Galaxy qualifies as a "next-gen" mario game.
when i think of "original" next-gen games, i think of new settings, new characters, inventive visual/audio design(not necessarily technically better), inventive gameplay styles. the most important thing is it must be a combination of most or all these aspects but executed properly. there are alot of games i thought could have been good next-gen games but just weren't designed well like Lair, Assassin's Creed etc. hopefully games like Demon's Souls will fare much better.
here are my favorite games/potential franchises from the current next-gen consoles:
(in no particular order)
No More Heroes
Little Big Planet
Zack & Wiki
Muramasa: The Demon Blade
if i had a 360 the list might be bigger
Posted: October 05, 2009 (07:16 PM)
As the obvious technical differences between each successive generation of consoles decreases, the obviousness of all other kinds of difference is decreasing as well.
In one sense, technical advances allow certain kinds of innovation, and very occasionally someone gets another 'eureka!' idea and makes a game that is new in its exploitation of the advances... but in another sense, there's no reason to expect these technological advances to make anyone more inherently creative. I think that's perhaps where you, or the kotaku guy, overexpect of the idea of 'next gen'. It's only because gaming is so young that we've been able to witness these generations where there was an amazing change each time. That time's over, and we've entered the steep, slow part of the development curve as of the Playstation era.
I wonder if designers were able to divorce themselves from the technology more, that they might experience more freedom in their thoughts. But they can't, 'cos as soon as they get used to programming one set of hardware and just showing up to its basic demands (Re: what consumers expect to see from it), another is thrown at them and they have to move back to point A. I'd like to see another gen like the PS1 where the same hardware stayed in place for 10 years. People really pushed the thing, and had the time to get well past the 'schtick of the week' phase.
Posted: October 06, 2009 (02:16 AM)
actually i'm a little more lenient than the kotaku guy as to what i think a next-gen game should be. he says Call of Duty 4 and Super Mario Galaxy doesn't qualify as next-gen games because it can be done on last-gen consoles but i disagree with that. it's like saying Sonic The Hedgehog on the Genesis wasn't a next-gen game because it was ported to the Master System.
Posted: October 07, 2009 (12:21 AM)
I think what this guy is calling for is games that push the CONCEPT of what gaming is. He wants things that couldn't have been done on a prior system, even if the games were willing to take a graphical hit.
But that's a strange way to judge a game. Games are based on more graphical achievements these days. It DOES affect the gameplay, when you can have a million soldiers on screen during Heavenly Sword, or 256 people fighting online in MAG, or a world so detailed it comes alive in Shadow of the Colossus.
His argument is an interesting one, but it would've been better suited to the gap between NES and SNES, or SNES and PS1.
EDIT: he's also ignoring the amount of coding that new systems can handle, as well as musical and sound achievements. He's looking at a very specific aspect of gaming.