8th gen console speculation

[Psychotime]

Yeah I don't know about you guys, but I've been having fun playing these recent games with all of those fancy graphics and interactive environments.

It'd be pretty cool to see how games would be like when we get to the point where environments can act almost completely naturalistic. Imagine a GTA game like that.

I mean, Battlefeild has destructible environments, and Burnout gives a big focus on car destruction, but I think we've got a good ways to go before we can simulate nearly flawless naturalism in video games. I have to wonder how those kinds of games would even design themselves, if the entire environment followed some kind of physics, instead of only just the objects that have a utility IN game to do so?

[Raoul Duke]

I think this kinda tech might be able to make that dreamy tech your talking about possible. I think it's just a question of rather or not any developers are interested. As cool as the possibilities for this seem, polygons are so time tested and reliable. Plus I don't think I saw any animation in this demo.

[krysjez]

I'll admit AC has a random plot. But the cloak and dagger lore still drew me in. Crawling around on rooftops, spying on enemies, poisoning fools for talking shit. All great ways to move through the story. Even if it's a bad the story, the execution of it made it worth while.

Plus it's so pretty! What keeps me playing AC is the little historical (or pseudo-historical) factoids that pop up from time to time...love those.

[Ian Barker]

But don't you think the cinematic aspects make a story more believable.

No way. I'm sick of "AAA" games that are all about cinematic experiences and so on. Most of them are all flash and no story or gameplay substance.

Also I've never played a game with good story. They're almost always cheesy lesser versions of comic books and movies that have already come out. Forget about updated graphics, when will we starting spending money to hire real writers to work on video games?

Actually now that I think about it I did enjoy the story in Majora's Mask and Shadow of the Colossus.

[Raoul Duke]

I don't know what you haters is hating about. Video Games are a AUDIO/VISUAL experience. The better they perform on that front, the better the delivery. Could you imagine how good a movie like The Big Labowski would be if you couldn't hear or see it properly. I'm not saying your old favorite games suck, but they'd probably be better if they were made today.

How does this not qualify as epic? The premise would probably fall apart as text, but the performance completely knocks it out of the park.


How is the interactive storytelling here not as good as it used to be? (skip to 3:30) Sorry about the quality of the play through.


The storytelling here isn't good enough for you guys?

[Raoul Duke]

Look at the pretty

[Velocity Kendall]

AI that learns.

[JFierce]

The AI super computer that hunts down humanity. It will begin ..... from games..... then, the real game begins......

[Velocity Kendall]

ha ha ha! i think itll come out of Palo Alto, then here in Cambridge, then everywhere minutes later.

[Psychotime]

The AI super computer that hunts down humanity. It will begin ..... from games..... then, the real game begins......

I think the programers would only have it target the annoying 10 year olds on Xbox Live. That way it's win/win!

[triggerpigking]

8th gen is going to be interesting ,could be a major changer for better or worse considering the rising production costs are putting alot of gaming studio's and now publishers. hell I can actually see either sony or microsoft backing out of consoles if things turn bad enough (my bet would be on sony think theyre gonna overprice they're console again:/) did find an interesting article on how the wii u could actually win next gen and it makes alot of sense http://www.destructoid.com/blogs/Edg...--244644.phtml

Ive got a gaming pc so im only getting a wii u next gen and maybe a ps4 my ps3's not got much use but I can't resist naughty dog or metal gear won't be buying the xbox though sick of microsoft.

[JFierce]

Nintendo always put innovation above graphics which is one reason I like them. Which is why their DS sold double to triple what the PSP did. Why the Wii sold better than Xbox360 or PS3. Why I'm betting the WiiU will do better since all I read from Microsoft and Sony is 'better graphics' or kinect built in'. Which doesn't sell me. Especially since it's basically pushing people towards PC gaming. Where you can have both a kickass PC for personal use and play major title games. WiiU I haven't even played but it at least has new forms of gameplay and use. I can just imagine a Metroid Prime game where you use the handheld Screen to use as the scanner and different visors.

[Psychotime]

That's a smart article.

1) Prettier games, bigger budgets: This is the same as usual scenario of all gens up to the 6th gen, a new gen of consoles arrives and better looking games with it, the main problem here is that development budgets on the 7th generation of consoles broke the point of stability for game development. In addition to this, publishers pushed harsher regulations, controls and tactics on studios making it so that a single failure could potentially put a studio in hot water.

Given the specs presented earlier one can only imagine how much will budgets rise in the 8th generation of consoles, and it doesn't take much thinking to realize how this could go horribly wrong. All we have to do is look at the fairly common news about studio's staff layoffs and closures these recent years and take it to a bigger scale to get a very ugly picture of how things could turn out.

Unlike the start of the 7th gen, publishers are already feeling the financial pressures of raising game budgets and scrambling to find new ways to extract more money out of the same products, we've seen this with the introduction (and distortion) of ideas like DLC, season passes and microtransactions. Then there's the inclusion of other tried and true tactics such as double dipping (GOTY Editions anyone?) or ideas that are not even logically justifiable such as online passes.

A more recent tactic is the release of HD collections of titles from the 6th generation of consoles, this is yet again a move to get more money out of existing assets with minimal effort when compared to developing a game from scratch. This particular tactic has even been extended to successful 7th generation series like Mass Effect, Bioshock and Assassins Creed (I'm gonna take a chance and predict Dead Space will follow suit in a few months). Another less spread variation of this approach is to port successful titles from portable devices, for example God of War (even coupled with double dipping) and Resident Evil Revelations (and if recent comments from a Mercury Steam dev are anything to go by, I suspect Castlevania's unreleased 3DS entry has strong chances to see an HD version on consoles should the 3DS release prove profitable and popular enough).

By far the most common strategy is the trend of mainstreaming IPs to appeal to broader audience, one that in fact has produced less than satisfactory results, after all if a main entry from a long standing franchise selling 4.8 million copies is deemed a failure (Resident Evil 6), then what are the survival chances of newer, untried IPs?. Considering the leaked PS4 hardware specs, imagine just how much budgets will rise and what consequences this could bring to publishers, see where this is going?.

But the final nail in the coffin for the PS4 and X720 has to be the much needed reality check to publishers brought by the fall of THQ in January. Yes, studios closing has become fairly common in recent years, but publishers managed to survive games failing to meet sales expectations by closing studios and keeping their IPs, not this time around though. Publishers would have to be crazy not to feel at least a little concern regarding this matter considering it wasn't a small publisher of niche titles like XSEED but a fairly big one with recognizable franchises to it's name like Saints Row and even annual sports IPs like the WWE series.

I only take issue with one thing they say.

By this point I'm pretty sure we're all familiar with the fact that almost every past gen of consoles the winner has turned out to be the most technically underpowered system in the race, but why is this? if the claim about underpowered systems holding back game development is true then why is it that systems with underpowered tech can still bring amazing experiences to the table and ultimately become the winners of the race over their more robust opponents?

The Wii is a perfect example of the underpowered system failing in that regard, though the story's different when sales are the topic.

The reason the PS2 "won" was because of the huge amount of quality 3rd party content. You sure as hell can't say the Wii accomplished that. Has there ever been a console with more shit released for it than the Wii? With the original Wii, the only games worth buying were things made by Nintendo themselves.

Other than that, the article's great.

[FightingSeraph]

To Triggerpigking: That article you have just posted reminds me of why bigger (Example: Hi-Definition video) doesn't make things better. In addition, I got a couple of chuckles out of that.

[Raoul Duke]

I don't mean to burst anybodies bubble but the Wii U is an epic fail. Look at the sales numbers http://www.vgchartz.com/ It's a great idea and I'll root for it but the hardware is under cooked. You can't even leave the room with the controller. They didn't use any of the 3ds technology. The reviews I've read say the controller disrupts gameplay more than improving it. Plus most of the games are dumbed down ports.

Xbox smart glass is going to do about the same thing, though it may fall a little short in ambition. At least you can use your own phone or tablet. I think it can be updated slowly but surely until it's a real bad motherfucker.

The dark horse I'm rooting for is the Steambox. Valve not only encourages user created content but allows you to rake in a profit. Now that would be great for us artist. Imagine playing a game you like and then making and selling a character for it. Here's a link to the likely hardware for it. http://gizmodo.com/5974346/meet-pist...box-love+child

[tobbA]

The reviews I've read say the controller disrupts gameplay more than improving it

I don't think that's true at all. At least in the games I've played. Usually looking at the gamepade is much more comfortable than playing on the TV. Sure the specs aren't that impressive for this day and age, but I can buy another console for that (or a PC.) Right now the main issue is that there just aren't that many interesting games for it. Which would explain the crappy sales so far. Hopefully that'll change in the future though.

And it'll be interesting to see how it'll interact with the other two big consoles this coming generation. There may perhaps even be a situation where developers favor the WiiU because it's cheaper and easier to develop for.

[Raoul Duke]

^I never played it myself, so I can't really judge. I learned from the N64 to jump on the ban wagon that the games I want to play are being developed for. Nintendo has a bad track record on that front. You really have to be into Mario and Zelda to justify buying a Nintendo.

[JFierce]

Many friends with WiiU, they all love it and the controls. I don't really think you can judge if WiiU is a flop or not because there's no comparison sales wise. But I highly doubt it will be because they've been selling out left and right.

Game wise, yerp if your not a Nintendo fan don't get a WiiU. Simple as that.

[triggerpigking]

I only take issue with one thing they say.

The Wii is a perfect example of the underpowered system failing in that regard, though the story's different when sales are the topic.
The reason the PS2 "won" was because of the huge amount of quality 3rd party content. You sure as hell can't say the Wii accomplished that. Has there ever been a console with more shit released for it than the Wii? With the original Wii, the only games worth buying were things made by Nintendo themselves.
Other than that, the article's great.

I have mixed opinions on the wii I believe the wii was mean to pull this strategy but they underpowered it too much they also may have bargained on development prices rising quicker then they did. On the other hand I do respect the wii for being able to find a different audience although its not a tactic that'd work twice.
Also Wii did have some must play titles outside of nintendo imo just that they were few and far between and you had to dig, no mine through the shovelware with a few fucking disintegrating laser's to reach them XD. However the point is still true aside from I think the snes? it has always been the most underpowered console that has won the wii won and didnt win simultaneously.
Would say xbox won the core gamers including me for the most of its life time but thats really just because it was the least worst console not becuase it was best, wii was underpowered ps3 was overpriced. My xbox broke down like 5 or 6 times had to wait two months to get it back once for it to break again a week later >:/

I don't mean to burst anybodies bubble but the Wii U is an epic fail. Look at the sales numbers http://www.vgchartz.com/ It's a great idea and I'll root for it but the hardware is under cooked. You can't even leave the room with the controller. They didn't use any of the 3ds technology. The reviews I've read say the controller disrupts gameplay more than improving it. Plus most of the games are dumbed down ports.

Think your listening to the bad pr too much most consoles start out like this with ports and a dry patch of games, also from what ive heard the first month sales beat the ps3 and xbox's combined first month sales (its sold very poorly in the uk though but thats because its horribly overpriced and theres barely any ads). The controller from what ive seen looks like it may take a bit of time to get used to but anyone ive heard who have played with it for over 5 or 10 minutes have got used to it pretty quick.
i would'nt listen to everything gaming news places has to say about nintendo not trying to sound like a ninty fanboy but alot of them are really biased.

edit:Also another thing about the controller its a bit annoying how everyone seems to think they need to do something interesting with it, it has to be used interestingly or theyre not porting the game onto it,(sounds more like an excuse Looking at you tomb raider) it really is optional just add the hud onto it or the off screen play(which is apparently really simple code) unlike the wii they are not being forced to think in interesting ways to use it and why should they it would'nt work for everything anyway, that's the reason the pro controller was added why not just add support for that.

[Psychotime]

However the point is still true aside from I think the snes? it has always been the most underpowered console that has won the wii won and didnt win simultaneously.
Would say xbox won the core gamers including me for the most of its life time but thats really just because it was the least worst console not becuase it was best, wii was underpowered ps3 was overpriced. My xbox broke down like 5 or 6 times had to wait two months to get it back once for it to break again a week later >:/

It's really hard to pick a "winner" for this gen based on anything objective, I think. Wii had the tons of shovelware. Xbox had the red ring issues from shoddy hardware. Early on the PS3 had the high price point, low amount of original games, and weak ports. For the 360 and PS3, it took time for it to finally even out.

...I think the 360 won, despite the red ring fiasco. The reason I say this is because of 3rd party ports. Until recently, the 360 games were always better than the PS3 versions despite the multiple discs that would sometimes be utilized.

It surprised the hell out of me when I first noticed how Lost Odyssey (which I don't even like) had multiple discs. I thought those days were LONG gone.

Speaking of which, is there a REASON people still should be paying Microsoft money for Xbox Live? I'm surprised I've never heard people complain about this. It was one thing when online gaming finally caught on with the original Xbox, but at this point...why should I be paying for it? I don't do that for the PS3.

[triggerpigking]

Lol know what you mean about paying for xbox live I used to but stopped when they upped the prices again, the reason they make you pay for it because.....microsoft. granted i'll give it this ,it is alot better then the ps3's online so I wouldnt have a problem with maybe a £10-15 maybe even 20 pound yearly pass but the amount they ask for is ridiculous £50 last time I checked.

[FightingSeraph]

Personally, I think they can get a few more years out of X360 and PS3 and if all three companies were smart, open up* their systems to hobby developers. (E. g. NG.DevTeam, Sebastian Mihai, Super Fighter Team, etc.)

*=I already know about Steam and X-Box indie games, but even they have their flaws.

[triggerpigking]

Personally, I think they can get a few more years out of X360 and PS3 and if all three companies were smart, open up* their systems to hobby developers. (E. g. NG.DevTeam, Sebastian Mihai, Super Fighter Team, etc.)

I think ninty are doing that they used to only give dev kits out to company's if they had an office, but now are giving them to more indie devs take that witha grain of salt though as im not completely sure. It makes sense considering the attention nintendo have been giving indie games as of late.

[ThabisoMhlaba]

That final fantasy demo is sick. I'm a little weary of people blasting modern games for their 'lack of storytelling'. I'd say that there are quite a few games that provide a satisfying story experience while having fun gameplay. Metal Gear Solid, that whole series is excellent and IMO has only gotten better. Red Dead Redemption had a great story, and great gameplay (except for multiplayer, Rockstar needs to sort that out in their open world games). Heavy Rain, LA Noire, Journey. All games with different approaches yet equally satisfying. Granted some triple A titles do skimp story-wise, I don't think it's in order to improve gameplay or graphics, I think its because its pretty freaking hard to develop a game with a story that's going to captivate an ever widening demographic of gamers. Its much easier for an director to tell a bunch of artists to make things look awesome than it is to get the writers to really push the boundaries, especially since they have to also consider what the designers have in mind. With interactive media its much more difficult to control the audience's emotions because by the very nature of interactivity, everybody is going to have different feelings because of how they behave. It's not like a movie, or a book when its much easier to tell how you're supposed to feel, or how a character is developing. Think about your favourite characters from video games, its either the ones who have a full personality that is fleshed out and represented in events that aren't really in your control, OR its ones that have no real personality.

[JFierce]

Disagree mainly because storytelling is the same across all media. It's different in how it can be presented but good storytelling is simply good storytelling. I've played Super Nintendo games that have intricate stories of love, betrayal and war that is told better than plenty of modern games. They just had good writers, which are vanishing from games. If you want a good story, hire good writers instead of blowing a budget on making your game all purty looking.

Metal Gears a good example of a great modern game series. Why? Because it kept all the elements in place. It always had good writing (imo). They stayed true to their intent through all their games. They knew what made their games good.

Though speaking of demographics. Hell I was looking through an old drawer at a friends house and a few games showed up which are examples of games that actually became worse BECAUSE they were reaching for a wider demographic. They completely forgot (or never knew) why their games were good.

Resident Evil 6 and Devil May Cry 4. RE6 literally makes 3 campaigns to try to cater to every fanbase they can. 1 campaign to try to feel like the old games, 1 for the shooters, 1 for the people that like crazy action (though all of them had that). Problem is the none of them were good. They were ok. But overall mediocre. Devil May Cry 4 just flat out took out elements of the gameplay that made it fun. Then they threw in a new character with a terrible story. They fucked up so bad they had to reboot the game. (Which I've actually heard from friends is good. They went back to what made the old one god and improved the gameplay even).



But anyways. Main point being. Good games don't reach for a demographic. They just make the game and if it's good a demographic is formed then usually sequels just expand on what was good about the game. The games that start catering to widespread groups are usually the ones that are shit.

[ThabisoMhlaba]

Disagree mainly because storytelling is the same across all media. It's different in how it can be presented but good storytelling is simply good storytelling. I've played Super Nintendo games that have intricate stories of love, betrayal and war that is told better than plenty of modern games. They just had good writers, which are vanishing from games.

Metal Gears a good example of a great modern game. Why? Because it kept all the elements in place. They stayed true to their intent through all their games. They knew what made their games good.

Hell I was looking through an old drawer at a friends house and a few games showed up which are examples of games that actually became worse BECAUSE they were reaching for a wider demographic. They completely forgot (or never knew) why their games were good.

Resident Evil 6 and Devil May Cry 4. RE6 literally makes 3 campaigns to try to cater to every fanbase they can. 1 campaign to try to feel like the old games, 1 for the shooters, 1 for the people that like crazy action (though all of them had that). Problem is the none of them were good. They were ok. But overall mediocre. Devil May Cry 4 just flat out took out elements of the gameplay that made it fun. Then they threw in a new character with a terrible story. They fucked up so bad they had to reboot the game. (Which I've actually heard from friends is good. They went back to what made the old one god and improved the gameplay even).



But anyways. Main point being. Good games don't reach for a demographic. They just make the game and if it's good a demographic is formed then usually sequels just expand on what was good about the game. The games that start catering to widespread groups are usually the ones that are shit.

I think we'll have to disagree about storytelling being the same across all media.
Metal Gear Solid's story I'd say is opaque to a lot of people, It's ridiculous trying to make sense of it many times. It's the type of series that's a love or hate series. Which is not something you want if you want to sell. And you need to sell unless you're a big enough title. Resident Evil and DMC were series that don't carry the same power in terms of gamer clout that they used to. Also They were developed by newer teams so maybe they aren't great examples. But there a few more things to consider. One being the expectations of gamers. The bar has been set REALLY high. We want everything perfect, its hard enough to crunch out a function fleshed out game with all the bells and whistles with a great story and great innovative gameplay in 2 years thats going to be a sure thing. Especially when money is hard to come by. Economics, and the way investment works plays big into this. Also it's easier to make a good short story than a long one. It's easier to make an impacting iconic experience with a stripped down game. The more you add to a game the more moving parts the more difficult it is to have it all work together seamlessly and in a way that will impact everyone. Players have been asking for more and more so they will keep trying to give them more and more, while also trying to stay in business.

I'm really sympathetic to most developers they are beholden to investors for their livelihoods. So rather than blaming them, we can strive to change the system by which games are funded. (Kickstarter and the like) and/or change the culture of gaming. I think that older gamers might be in the minority with complaints like this, because clearly someone is buying these games if the way things are done now has become the trend.

[Raoul Duke]

Good writers and good stories don't grow on trees. Especially since the content usually isn't based on a writer's vision like other media. It's based on a collective vision. The story is normally an after thought and not the source of the subject matter. The rare exceptions are amazing though.

A big problem is the game market doesn't encourage original subject matter. It favors "Me 2" games. Hard core gamers want to spend $60 on a game that's just like their favorite only better. The big studios can afford good writers, but can't afford to take a risk. So it's lipstick on a pig when the story has to be just like Halo with tits.

On a positive note. The vulture capital investors and market analysts salt'n the Koolaide is nothing new. What's new is the growned up fan base. That comes with an educated fan base. Only problem is it's a tough crowd.

[triggerpigking]

I'm a little weary of people blasting modern games for their 'lack of storytelling'. I'd say that there are quite a few games that provide a satisfying story experience while having fun gameplay. Metal Gear Solid, that whole series is excellent and IMO has only gotten better. Red Dead Redemption had a great story, and great gameplay (except for multiplayer, Rockstar needs to sort that out in their open world games). Heavy Rain, LA Noire, Journey. All games with different approaches yet equally satisfying. Granted some triple A titles do skimp story-wise, I don't think it's in order to improve gameplay or graphics, I think its because its pretty freaking hard to develop a game with a story that's going to captivate an ever widening demographic of gamers. Its much easier for an director to tell a bunch of artists to make things look awesome than it is to get the writers to really push the boundaries, especially since they have to also consider what the designers have in mind. With interactive media its much more difficult to control the audience's emotions because by the very nature of interactivity, everybody is going to have different feelings because of how they behave. It's not like a movie, or a book when its much easier to tell how you're supposed to feel, or how a character is developing. Think about your favourite characters from video games, its either the ones who have a full personality that is fleshed out and represented in events that aren't really in your control, OR its ones that have no real personality.

Agree with you on that for the most part some of my favorite story's in games have come out this gen,(spec ops the line, bioshock and walking dead comes to mind straight away)
However I think the problem people have is more a problem with new i.p's and developers and more importantly publishers not taking risks for the most part, they put out games and either don't put any effort into the story or tape on writers who really don't seem to have done much or just don't know how to handle video games(looking at you john carpenter's f.e.a.r 3).

Metal gear and rockstar can get away with it because they can sell by name alone and have been around long enough for people to trust them i guarantee rockstar could pull a game out where you play as a flying hippo terrorising new york trying to gather and steal balloons and people would buy it if it had the rockstar logo, and in metal gear's case it's always had a good story and has builded it's audience from as far back as the ps1 era so it's not a very fair example.

but there really isnt many games that can get the marketing and budget especially from smaller devs to be able to achieve good storytelling that's not to say there aren't exception's ,they're just few and far between.
Spec ops is a good example in this case as they while it got a budget I think it wnet through a period of development hell and it had little to know marketing when it was released(bad marketing at that) and bombed badly and while the game is growing a little tiny following it's still and almost definietly will always be really small.

Also you say everyone will have different feelings to a game's story but i'd argue that's exactly the same in any other media, although I do get where your coming from to an extent its harder to connect with the character.

Devil May Cry 4 just flat out took out elements of the gameplay that made it fun. Then they threw in a new character with a terrible story. They fucked up so bad they had to reboot the game. (Which I've actually heard from friends is good. They went back to what made the old one god and improved the gameplay even).

I never understood the hate dmc4 get's im a big devil may cry fan and honestly I enjoyed it more then 01, I liked playing as nero even if the story was a bit too generic-animey my mian problem with the game was that it just sorta went on rewind but with dante at the second part.
I also doubt it was no4 that was so bad they had to reboot the series (there was a far worse game then dmc 4 remember and they didnt reboot it then) and more capcom trying to make dmc girtty and modern and believe me I can go on a whole rant on capcom but I don't want to derail the thread. oh and if you want resident evil to go back to its horror root's id advise you to buy and support the revelations console ports, after the horrible 06 sales, capcom said they're gonna moniter how the ports do to figure out which direction to take the series in from here in.

[Dumb Naked King]

Meh... I'm nowhere near as excited about that FF demo as I guess I should be. Looks like it's going to be more of the same. The chick looks just like another product of the FF character stamp machine.
I really don't understand how people can keep defending what has been going on with the series. The latest games to me have been a bunch of flat, flashy (to the point of seizure-inducing) mash-the-x-button incoherent bullshit games. I was excited when I got FFXIII, and after playing for two days it felt like a chore because the gameplay was monotonous AND I really. Didn't. Care. At all. What happened to the 2-dimensional characters. Really. They could have died in a horse gangbang and it would still have been uninteresting. I tried playing it through again, and the storyline was still confusing.

With all this potential that the new engines have, it makes me a little sad to see so much energy going into the wow-pretty-factor and so little going into actually making the game interesting to play. I'll agree that awesome graphics enhance a game enourmously if there is anything to enhance. I wish playing the FF games would stop feeling like watching a dog take a shit in HD.

[tobbA]

Heavy Rain was a fun game imo, but the story itself never went above b-movie standard. I think the last really great video game I played story-wise was Knights of the Old Republic and also Dreamfall: The Longest Journey. (Which is getting a sequel now, so yay!) I think the problem is that it's easier to get away with a bad story in a game than in other media, though. As long as the gameplay is fun people are much more likely to just buy into whatever the game tells you the story is.

Rhianna Pratchett is writing the script for the next Tomb Raider game, though. So that might be something.