Kotaku 
Enter your username and password.
Denver, 5:04 PM
Sun Nov 8
18 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip us: tips@kotaku.com
Editor-In-Chief:
Brian Crecente
Email | AIM | Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Stephen Totilo
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Editor:
Michael McWhertor
Email | AIM | Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor, Japan:
Brian Ashcraft
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, East Coast:
Michael Fahey
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Oceania:
Luke Plunkett
Email | AIM | Twitter
Contributing Editor, Weekends:
Owen Good
Email | AIM | Twitter
Correspondent, San Francisco:
AJ Glasser
Email | AIM | Twitter
Columnist:
Leigh Alexander
Columnist:
Tim Rogers
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/02/09
I think, though, beyond that, it's difficult to think whether the foundational concept behind LBP (it's not just a game, but a social network of level builders and players) would have appeared in the PS2 era. Time has seen many improvements not just to consoles but to social networking strategy and internet technologies, and with these new core technologies, game developers have branched out to interweave new design with new technology and theory.
10/01/09
If you asked someone in the days of SNES what games could do next with much more powerful hardware, the obvious answer would be 3D.
If you asked someone in the days of N64/PS1 what games could do next with much more powerful hardware, they might suggest an open-world game where you can walk around a living city. Or a game where tons of enemies can show up on screen at one time.
If you ask someone in the days of PS2/Xbox what games could do next, the answer wouldn't come as easily. Even more enemies? Destructible environments and fancy physics?
If you ask someone now what games could do with more powerful hardware other than fancier graphics, most likely they'd be stumped other than evolutionary improvement over the above ideas.
The problem isn't developers getting lazier or being bottlenecked by corporate interests. The problem is running out of obvious avenues for improvement.
10/01/09
However, I don't think it's a lack of avenues of improvement. I think that the changes are subtler. For example, let's take first person shooters.
You can see a marked improvement from Abyss to Doom, and a marked improvement from there to Quake. But at a glance, and if you squint a little bit (or keep your 640x480 monitor), you won't see much difference between Quake, Crysis, Killzone 2, Halo 3, -modern FPS goes here-. At least not as obvious as previously. Once you do play them, of course, you see the vast improvements over all that time.
There is one thing, though, that I strongly disagreed with Luke here, and that I think is related to this point: He mentions improvements in AI that exist just to do what they could do last gen. Isn't that an innovation by itself?
Returning to the FPS example. Making a competent AI in Wolf3D was relatively simple - all 90° turns, single level. Jump now to, say, Crysis of Halo, or Killzone, or Metroid Prime. Making an AI that will perform the "same" as the one in Wolf3D (let's say, shoots at you instead of at random bits of masonry and doesn't get stuck in walls), you are inherently improving the experience in ways impossible for the previous generation.
After all, you're now dealing with a 3D environment, with a lot more variables. To make it get to "competent" at all, you need a substantially beefier AI, which will give you a much different (and quite superior) experience.
Shouldn't that count? If you've overhauling your graphics and gameworld, and need to overhaul everything else into that level, aren't you implicitly doing something the last gen couldn't do?
10/01/09
Motion control and 3D seem like likely candidates, though I'm not sure that either of those is really going to last.
Something I'd like to see would be the ability to mesh many genres into a single experience. I can think of a few games that tried this, but I can't think of any that truly succeeded.
10/01/09
for instance: killzone 2, or any other shooter with massive online play - the physics/etc woudlnt work on ps2/xbox 1. you could take the rez/framerate down, muddy the textures etc, but could you still do the things, with as many people, on last gen's system? if the answer is "no", there's an example of something next (or rather, this) gen.
Dead Rising's a great example, by sheer # of zombies. i mean, wii ports've shown what can be done when you just take it down a notch, so things like MGS4 etc become debatable.
but take Valkyria Chronicles. the strategy parts, no doubt. even much of the voiceovers could go back a gen...but the art style, not so much. and if you say said art style isnt an integral part of the game's experience, i fear you played a different game than i.
10/01/09
Actually the pseudo-3D effect in those games doesn't have anything to do with parallax scrolling, it's called Mode 7.
Parallax scrolling is a purely 2D technique that consists of making backgrounds in games move slower than the actual level in the foreground.
10/01/09
10/01/09
I think there are lots of subtle things that are gaining momentum in this generation that will help push it forward, but ultimately, the current move towards innovation is less of a flying leap than a million meandering babysteps.
Have you spent much time with Shadow Complex? It's a great poster-child for this topic, in my opinion.
10/01/09
Anywho, don't want to ramble on and come across as an SDF drone here (I actually kind of hate Sony still, because of their shenanigans regarding the Dreamcast). But LBP is a unique and mold-breaking gem that simply would not have worked last gen. Even though it might have been technically possible on an Xbox, or a PS2 with a fairly rare combination of hardware, there would not have been the critical mass of people using those capabilities and making the community the success that it is today.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
*edit* Or does it? I sure hope so, the whole thing wouldn't make sense otherwise. The PC is always years ahead of the consoles.
10/01/09
But inovation doesnt require horsepower, it require boldness and creativity. Technically, you couldnt really do any of these games in previous gen - simply because the graphics wouldnt handle.
I think game studios are as traditional as Hollywood studios - so, its core intent is to make something that fits the budget, sells well and have a broad audience. Thing is you cant be really bold with a broad audience, can you? You have to be accessible.
You can, of course, put the two toghether. Inovation AND horsepower. But to do something really new is take a risk. I dont really think that oblivion or Fallout 3 are inovative games, they're just the same old concept with more juice. You can explore MORE. You can have MORE zombies in a scene. Thats great, but also a little bit boring.
So, summing it up, i think youre mixing the concepts here. Inovation is one thing, not necessarely put toghether with the current gen. Every once in a while, one can inovate in a way that requires a lot of hardware to deliver - but most of the time thats not the case.
Just think about movies. REALLY good movies require lots and lots of FX, or just a good concept?
10/01/09
10/01/09
"LittleBigPlanet? Another great game, but the PSP version shows the core experience could have been done on a PS2."
10/01/09
The reason previous consoles had such a big leap was because back then it was the birth of gaming, gaming in its very early stages.
We went from 2D to 3D, thats a massive leap but we cant go to 4D now can we? We have made most of the large advancements, now we must focus on the little details.
10/01/09
Why is graphical achievements suddenly trivial? Better graphics add immersion when properly executed, and certain games (not necessarily console, such as Crysis) have gained massive amts of attention just because it can render some pretty scenery. And if graphics are trivial why is something like LBP, whose underlying concept is more important than the superficial graphics covering it, dismissed as a handheld game? And what's wrong with handhelds? Is the introduction of waggle to games revolutionary, but not the introduction of touchpad action? If graphics are truly a nonfactor, there are many new, sometimes even successful, DS games that could be considered revolutionary.
10/01/09
The same applies to Fallout wether you compare it to the Elder Scroll or to previous Fallout games.
10/01/09
However, in TES II: Daggerfall (1996), there was no such limitation and the world was bigger than Oblivion. You also had a lot more freedom of action.
10/01/09
10/01/09
10/01/09
Yes, there have been leaps in consoles, downloads and online ability. But the talking point here is games. The next gen games.
I agree, I really haven't seen anything major this gen that wasn't all about the graphics.
Again, we do have some technical advancements; loadtimes, framerates, gamesizes, memory. But, this isn't the game, it a convinience with the console.
So, where are the next gen games?
10/01/09
10/01/09
None of the things you mentioned have anything to do with actual gameplay.
10/01/09
I think Shuffle's right to argue that connectivity (media, networking, and other) is the couldn't-do-it-like-this-last-time...... hallmark of this generation. And I don't think there's some (even vague) roadmap to help us find 'next-gen gameplay.' Right now games and the technology they use are pretty well in line with our reality and our human senses. It doesn't make sense that anything huge is going to change that, unless it's some kind of virtual reality tech.
10/01/09
"the natural evolution of any technical artform is to align itself with how we perceive things with our human senses-- mono sound became stereo, silent movies became talkies, black and white television became color."
Except that is not always true. Look at how 19th century realistic painting turned off into impressionism, cubism and so on. Fidelity to nature isn't the only route. More recently, listen to the decline in audio quality from vinyl to CD to MP3, see the decline in quality from film to digital cameras.
Convenience, accessibility and a more immediate/visceral experience wins over fidelity to life.
10/01/09
But you're right, there won't be as big a leap as we had when we went from 2D to 3D. But that's a point Luke already made in the article. There are other ways of improving the actual games: be it by creating them on a larger scale (like Dead Rising and Fallout 3) or by utilizing new controls (like Wii Sports).
I think most people (well, at least shufflemoomin seemed to) misinterpret this article as Luke whining about the new generation of consoles. He's just arguing that current technology could be exploited to improve actual gameplay, to increase realism beyond bump-mapping and shader effects. Creating a bigger, more immersive world and more intuitive controls are two ways of achieving that.
10/01/09
10/01/09