So then it must be the pure processing power, the ability to do something that could be conceived on previous consoles, but not to a point of refinement that it would have been worth the programming due to processing constraints.

In that case, Fracture, Force Unleashed, Portal, Deadspace, and Rise of the Argonauts are next-gen gameplay due to their ability to have those great ideas and put them to use.

Either I'm sorely mistaken and so are many of the readers, or perhaps the writer might better express his concerns, because it seems we're all speculating about the chicken or the egg at this point.

AntiheroKing

And were still barely doing this. And only recently have games really done this.

Ala Dead Rising.. I think Half Life 2(Haven't played the first one) does this.. Bio Shock touches on bits of it.. (Nothing Major) Red Faction Kind of touched on bits of it.(Again nothing Major)

But really I agree, it has not happened yet and it would be damned well nice when it does.

Maybe it will finally happen when we get virtual reality games in 2095?

--Core--

Originally, next-gen was short for next-generation. That is, when the PS2, GC, and XBOX were the current systems on the market, the PS3, Wii and X360 were the next-gen systems we were all looking forward to. They have all arrived now! They are now longer next-generation! They are all current-gen systems, just like the PS2, GC and XBOX were in their time.

That being said, if you still insist on calling the current systems next-gen, then any game on those systems should be considered next-gen, because they are on a 'next-gen' system.

The fact is, that almost any gameplay innovations using the more powerful and new features of the new consoles could probably be done on an older console with a big graphics hit. I understand the example of dead rising. Tons and tons and tons of HD zombies on screen at the same time was definately not possible on the older systems. BUT... with a big graphics hit you could still have the same type of gameplay. Look at Serious Sam.

All of the newer systems can do things that the older systems could not. The Wii has a brand new control scheme that provides for new types of gameplay. All of the systems are now fully online with internet multiplayer, online stores, downloadable content and demos. Newer processers allow for more accurate and larger scale physics simulations. All of these things are fantastic and more than welcome IMHO.

I guess my whole point is, if you care what is 'next-get' and what isn't, then you have bought into a crappy marketing scheme and are wasting your time. Enjoy the innovation in games, not matter where it shows - controls, graphics, gameplay, features, connectivity, accessability, story, writing, multiplayer. Doesn't matter, last year was a great one for gamers. Lets hope theres many more to come in this generation and the next.

SP-Butters

MasterDex

FIrst of all anyone who thought of Halo 3 as revolutionary please, sell your 360 now and never play another game ever. Halo 3 was Halo 2 with better graphics, same goes for Halo 2 being Halo 1 with online play. and creative? ha!
Cod4, I love the game to bits and put in hours every day in the multiplayer but the game (multiplayer included) is far from revolutionry. It's just COD1 or 2 with the ranks and class system of the battlefield series...mind you, the perks added many new ways to play. Still, I wouldn't call it revolutionry, inspired maybe.
What else, Portal I think could fall into revolutionry I guess if you consider the ingenuity behind the game. Certainly, things of its ilk have been done before but not so finely tuned as Portal to allow the player to completely forget there are no enemies to shoot or princesses to save (when you consider just a while back the people claiming Portals lack of originality were most probably agreeing that games need to seperate themselves from the voilence and 'defeat the enemy' scenarios.

In the end I don't think there is such think as 'next-gen' gameplay and agree with those who have said it's just another buzzword for us to debate about. There is however and has always been those special titles that we would bring with us to the grave if discs weren't so damn hard to damage. Games like Supreme Commander, Total War and Battlefield, just to name a few, are games that (in thier first outings at least) were cosidered original and thre will surely be many more original games to come out, even if they do have gameplay that we've all seen done before.

However, if I was to agree that there was such a thing as next-gen gameplay then I would have to say that Metroid Prime: Corruption fits the bill. Being primarily a PC gamer and loving FPS games, it was great to see that finally a console FPS could on some level compete with the controls of a keyboard and mouse.

whew, now that, my firends, is a first post XD

MasterDex

But with the PS3 devs have the potential to make more out of they're vision then they can with any other system thats out right now.
Simple fact.

Not that I really expect you see that. At this point I'm sure you're more concerned with being "right" then you are with being correct. So I'll state my point then let you go argue with yourself.

We will have both Innovations,Revelation AND Evolutions in gaming when companies finally become more concerned with making a good game MORE than just making a quick buck.

MightyKAC

As someone here already said, "Evolution is just as good as revolution." I think the most important question to ask of a game is not "Is it new?", but "Is it good?".

Jason144

slash'm ups have already been done, Dead Rising has already been done...

Halo has already been done.....

you can't necessarily change 'next gen' gameplay... you need entirely different hardware.... I mean, you can change how characters move, react, etc. etc.(Uncharted) but the gameplay and simplistics are all there........

o_O;

Killzone2 will be a beast >)

MySoul7

To be honest, my favorite game this generation has been Bioshock which succeeded because of story telling and not next gen gameplay. I want a new experience.

xibis

After all, when you make a game to "look real" players expect it to "act real". This is why games like "Super mario galaxy" can have the fun gameplay it does..

JamieA

The last truly innovative PC title was Descent. How long ago was that? 1995?

Jordan Lund

Leanid

Lucas Arts is right, Fracture and Force U are going to push it a little.

I'd say crackdown was pretty fresh with it's massive world that you can climb every inch of, smooth graphic style and seamless co-op. Even if it was a combination of game play elements we'd seen before, it's still an example of using modern hardware power to allow for a long list of features that couldn't have been pulled off in one game before.

kidko

RawSteelUT

immersing you in a new type of situation and forcing you to think like you've never had to before is maybe what 'next gen' means.

AVP2 had small doses of this..

you are in situation X and you are now an (alien-predator-beaver-whatever): Escape!

another hat tip to Stubbs.. that was nearly next gen and sadly ignored brain munchin fun.. your own zombie horde plus your very own town to destroy, plus a killer soundtrack, rednecks and a love story! best zombie game ever..

when I can plug two completely different games together and play Mech4 mechs against Jedis and At-ats then I'll know next gen is here.. it's all just talk before then. give me mechs vs jedis dammit!

railskins

excaleranth

this way, next gen will eventually come to this batch of consoles, just give them some time, receiving a call on a cellphone for hints is even more next gen than receiving it on the wiimote IMHO, and eventually new ways to interact with non living entities believing they indeed are alive, will come.

just be patient. We havent still seen the virtual reality promised with the project reality, right? why do you want nextgen right now?

DLNO-001

You're a fortune teller as well?

Personally, I thought the wii was a pile of horse-shit when it was announced and first came out. Boy was I wrong.

I'm completely astonished at its popularity. Everyone single time I goto work "You guys got any wiis?"( I'm sure you'll change your tune when a castlevania comes out for it.

And no, none of the current systems have the potential for developers to completely flesh out their imaginations like you claim. I assume when you're speaking of the pstriple you mean the 25 gbs-50 gbs storage capacity of the bluray disc.

You're incredibly wrong. Just because these developers have the space, doesn't mean they'll use it, nor use it properly. All of the ps3 games that have come out so far are prime examples of "proper use of disc space" for a dvd9.

ManjiKengo reads DuneTiger reads Kotaku, seems pleased.

FancyShmancy

If you spend multiple millions of dollars developing a game you can't take the risk of doing something risky and untried. You could end up losing your bankroll. That's why we see a ton of "It's like Halo, but..." games.

In the end the experimental control schemes will be worked out on platforms that are much cheaper to develop for. For example, Katamari Damacy coming out of the Playstation 2 or Patapon coming from the PSP.

These ideas, once they've been proven can then be moved to the more expensive next gen platforms.

Imagine pitching Patapon for the PS3 or Xbox 360... "Um, yeah, it's like a real-time-strategy, RPG, platform, rhythm game..." It's great, and I love it, but it's the kind of thing you have to see and play to realize how cool it is.

Jordan Lund

Pantsman

interstate78

merebito

arexsvn

I was blocked unfairly.

And it ran on a 486DX with 8MB RAM.

Oblivion wasn't next-gen, it was 1996.

Koztah

While watching a review for Turok, the narrator praised the game for having grass that moved while you walk through it.

REALLY???

We're praising a next-generation game for MOVING GRASS?

If the grass in your game DOESN'T move, then it deserves a mention, for laziness. Metal Gear Solid 3, a PS2 game released in 2004, had fluidly moving grass. But not only that, when you sliced it with your knife you could see the grass get shorter, and a few seconds later grow back. When it rained, water would collect on the grass. And if you moved through the grass when it was rained on, water would fall off. If you went away from that area and then traced your steps back to that same area where the water fell off, it wouldn't be there, because it remembers exactly which blades of grass had water on them.

And yet, in 2008, we're still praising a game because the grass moves???

And even graphically, I'm not very impressed with this generation yet. I've seen 360 games with character models a LOT more crappy and less detailed than PS2 games, and I'm not joking. Just look at silent hill 3 and 4, then look at Uncharted character models. Is it REALLY as impressive as people say?

No. It isn't.

Hopefully Heavy Rain will impress me.

YUYU

As for DLC, sure a few games on PS2 and Xbox had DLC, but now it's pretty much expected that any game you buy will have more stuff available via DLC eventually. When Halo 2 got new maps it was a huge deal.

Canadian Impostor

But Luke... Portal, the neat stuff being made with PS3 EyeToy2, Little Big Planet, Super Mario Galaxy (the theme is old, gameplay not so much), some independent games presented on this very blog (like crayon physics), Wii (might not have pleased everyone, but shure is a new way of playing)... f*ck, just yesterday I saw that video with that game... EndWar... where you use only voice commands to play.

I mean, c'mom... there's never been a time where developers been so interested, and people where investing so much in new ways of playing games. Just look around!

PS3 even has that new physics chip that, while not being used to innovate many games, it's still something no other console has.
The WiiMote is also even Nintendo haters will agree with me, completely different from your standard gamepad... accelerometers, infrared cameras...

Problem is: It's hard to convince people on trying new ways of playing games they already have lots of fun with. And it's hard to make it right on a first attempt.

So my advice is: Have some patience. And try more different stuff, because they are out there!

Bokusatsu_Tenshi

I had high hopes for Bad Company as well and even if there are SOME limitations to what can be destroyed; i'll be happy as long as there is some logic to it.

jp182

floppylobster

Mister Adequate

HurricaneDave

Halo did nothing new. It took every FPS before it, dumbed them down, and threw it into Live.

Bioshock did nothing new. It took both System Shock games, put a new theme on it, and threw it into the 40s."

Yeah, you're right. Because all those massive city simulators where you could access a hugely detailed city and free-run, parkour-style through it were so prevalent prior to Assassin's Creed that I....oh, wait. I guess Thief, great a game as it was, didn't have anything like that. It was limited with level designs that usually only encompassed about a city block or a manor house for it's fantastic gameplay. So I guess maybe AC WAS new.

But you're spot on about Halo 3. It's just like Halo 2...except for the online connectivity where you can track incredibly detailed stats; featured a theater mode to replay any recent game and make custom movies and screenshots of them; upload and trade those screenshots, custom game-types and movies to other gamers or to a website; play the entire single-player campaign cooperatively with 3 other people online or locally in silky smooth resolution; featured a gameplay type that allowed you to change the level and equipment design of the game IN REAL TIME or.....Gosh. Now that I think about it, Halo 3 doesn't sound just like Halo 2 with a fresh coat of paint at all.

But Bioshock...well, you've got a point there. All they did was create an award-winning game with some of the best writing and atmosphere in gaming as a follow-up to their previous award-winning game that ALSO had some of the best writing and atmosphere in gaming.

Of course, that assumes that creating a sequel to a game that's sold millions of copies, received vast critical acclaim or has enjoyed continual play for years after it's release as a BAD THING. If being successful and not completely screwing up the formula of an established franchise is a sin, then I suppose Halo 3, Call of Duty 4 and Bioshock (among others) are guilty as charged.

That doesn't mean I don't think that there are sequel games out that are crap: Devil May Cry 4 is the prettiest version of Devil May Cry 2 that Capcom has ever released....but it's still just DMC2 with more cutscenes.

And if someone can claim that Zak and Wiki is not an example of the Wii living up to it's promise (as rarely as that's happened so far), then I can only assume they've either never played it or are just being contrary.

WizarDru

LX

Honestly, gamers are a fickle bunch. We scream for "innovation" or something "next gen". Yet in the next breath, if you ask us what we want to play, we'll demand a sequel to something. Either another Grim Fandango or another Half Life or Halo. And if devs change them too much, us gamers will cry bloody murder.

Is it really surprising that we don't see drastic innovation succeed? No wonder devs are averse to taking risks. And please don't bring up the Wii. It really hasn't elevated itself past novelty status.

At the end of the day, games will be the games. Some will bring new things to the table. Others will bring us familiar favorites. For now, we're starting to see innovation in other areas other than the games themselves.

For example, MS gave us a the 360 dashboard and all the functionality it offers... something that the competition is trying to emulate. Then there's the expanded online that sets the bar for what console online features should be. It's even redefined what being online means in the console world. We're getting innovation right there and most don't even realize...either that or it's taken for granted.

VoodooHack

Plunkett there is one more game with next-gen gameplay out:
Assassin's Creed !
and Alone in the Dark looks as realistically interactive as a next-gen game should be, but it's not out yet.

and we're sure to see some better crowd AI in the next Hitman (whenever they choose to make one)

coladict

EgoMonk

And I know someone will say that touch-screens have been around forever, but they haven't been used for this kind of gaming.

Superstar90

It's not that the current hardware isn't being tapped, it's just that the last generation was SO GOOD. We take the technical aspects of games for granted now, and that wasn't always the case. Fast, fluid 3D graphics, high quality surround sound -- even code that doesn't crash -- these are all major accomplishments.

Next Gen doesn't necessarily mean "can't be done on the previous platform," because you can always cut down the technical specs to get the core gameplay onto anything. KOTOR would work great as a DS game and we've seen GTA in 2D before -- that's where it came from. The current generation of consoles is just an evolutionary step above the previous one, and just because we have 4x the screen resolution or processing power doesn't mean we'll get that level of sophistication in "gameplay."

Whatever that is.

P.S. Crackdown for XBOX 360: not possible on prior generations, and a great, underrated game.

flojomojo

KingDavid73

Still, Luke's right. Most games in the last 2-3 years are flashier looking but shorter and not really innovative in the way you play.

Chilly Hollow

I've been saying this for ages now. Many of the current gen games people gush about so much are just prettied up versions of last gen games that play exactly like they did last-gen too. Yet this is what passes for "hardcore" gaming in 2008.

Ironically, the one console offering new ways of playing is routinely ignored by companies like Lucasarts....

inphanta

This also includes most of the quality Wii games that have "waggle" and DS games.

plenty of next gen here. :)

Onizuka-GTO

Dex

Again.. that's stuff that's been offered for over a decade on the PC platform. Bringing it to the console platform, finally, is hardly next gen.

otimus

NameYourCharacter

Collapse The Control

And on a side not why is it that people seem to look at the wii as this revolutionary console when all they are doing is updating gamecube games with a motion sensor gimmick? Has anyone stopped to think about where its gonna be at in 3, 4,or 5 years for now? If anyone thinks its gonna have the life span as long as something like the PS2 then I got REALLLY bad news for them.....

MightyKAC

Ulquiorra Schiffer

Detre

Moonshadow101

fragmaster

kenjara

ragfragger

Nexus6

Nexus6

This generation has provided some of my greatest gaming moments, it's been just as innovative as any other generation before it.

Passa

As for the theatre mode in Halo 3? Good holy god. That's been done since the early 90's.

Bringing something that's existed for over a decade on another platform, to another platform =/= next gen.

otimus

GMC

Do a comparison of launch titles on the PS2, to something like GoW2 or FFXII. Both in terms of graphics and gameplay, that's a huge, huge, difference, and it's still the same console.

DismantleRepair

To me personally, is the thing that defines the next-gen the most, is the shift in attitude by both developers and gamers alike. Gamers are demanding much more from games, and are very vocal about it, and developers are continuing to push the games medium. So far we are seeing massive advances in story telling (think Bioshock), theme (think Uncharted), and overall *artistry* (of game design, think Portal). Pretty high-level stuff. And lets not shrug off the massive advance in graphics, which gives the power to developers to further increase the visual medium and immersion of their games. Anyways, thats my 2 cents.

maxsunset

CaptainAtman

That is of course if we're simply discussing using high technology to fuel new game-play ideas instead of the unending strive for photo realistic graphics. The power doesn't need to exist for innovation to take root. Audiosurf, Echochrome, Portal and Fez are examples of games that offer something different. All of which aren't games that require "next-gen" hardware.

That said LittleBigPlanet is looking pretty unique, but I'll wait until I've played it before commenting whether or not the game-play requires the power of the PS3, or if said game-play can exist on inferior hardware.

Replica23

Gladman

Sentientv2

One thing I don't think makes sense is when people say that companies aren't willing to create more unique titles that are "next gen" because they fear production costs won't be recovered. If we're talking about making a game that simply couldn't be done on last gen consoles, then they'll make up production costs simply because the game will probably be awesome. If we're talking innovative game design, that's another story. I mean, who wouldn't want to buy a game with spectacular graphics, physics, and AI that can only be achieved on next gen consoles (and we REALLY shouldn't be calling them next gen at this point).

TheEngineer

gunstarhero

ThisCharmingMan

Also, anyone know of a pre-halo 3 game that had online coop with vehicles and AI (and AI driving vehicles)? I'm not saying there isn't one - but I can't think of one.

PreachingLlama

Although to be fair, the Wii hasn't gotten that many games that truly make advantage of the Wiimote yet, either. Many of the top titles just have better controls or don't really use it at all (yes, Smash Bros. Would've been a bad choice otherwise though).
But at least they aren't hiding that behind shiny graphics.

Nirual

noelix

The logic here is that new gameplay many times doesnt mean good innovation. Where as you can make old gameplay styles look and sound better, yet still feel fresh and fun. RPGs are a prime example of this, atleast to me. I find that I enjoy the classic style games(Lost Odyssey) far more than the quirky new ones (super mario galaxy, flow)

So my question is, do we really need a new innovation? For me, the answer is no. For the industry to survive, well, thats debatable. Currently, the industry is thriving to a level never seen before in history and its doing so on the back of old gameplay styles. Historically this cant hold up though, and a break through title will be needed. Question is really when it will happen, not if.(To paraphrase, I dont think we need new innovation now, but it will be needed in the future for the industry to survive.)

RuneX

CenatorC

Krackatoa

Torokun

Gameplay as we know it will continually be rehashes of the same concepts we know if developers continually think inside the box and consumers continually eat it up. I'm not saying it's easy for developers to sit down and say "How do we completely reinvent how the player experiences this?" but that hurdle will leave us with the same HUDs, interfaces, menu screens, movement, whatever. Just look at the difference between the 2600 joystick and the NES controller. Despite the introduction of motion controls (which expectedly still aren't being done to great success) and voice recognition (which is still shotty at best), we still have controllers which have face buttons and directional pads; analog sticks and shoulder buttons just allow us to use more of our fingers. We're mainly limited to our hands as input and thus since we've pretty much tapped any concept or combination thereof, it's only a matter of time before that PS9 commercial comes true and we play our games with our minds.

Shalashaska

It's a goddamned sequel to an established franchise of books, action figures, and of course the videogames. WHO THE HELL IN THEIR RIGHT MINDS WOULD DICK AROUND WITH THE CORE GAMEPLAY IN SUPPOSEDLY THE LAST OF THE SERIES?

Seriously. One more person pull out Halo 3 as a strawman, and I will blow their kneecaps off with a musket.

Gunhaver

Geometry Wars is another good example. Gameplay that's been done more times than WW2 shooters, and it's still more addictive than crack.

Games don't need to storm uncharted territory to be good. They don't need to push your hardware capabilities to be good. They just need to be fun.

ShaggE

Even simple innovations can significantly change "gameplay" in the sense that said innovations can alter the attitudes you take into playing the game itself.

For a genre such as first-person shooters, even simplistic changes like regenerating health, iron sights, or cover mechanics have very clearly altered the way we approach the game. Secondary fire modes or a separate key for throwing grenades alone made a HUGE difference.

In strategy games, Homeworld helped revolutionize the field by adding an additional field of movement and introducing the concept of the persistent fleet. Dawn of War and Company of Heroes added cover and a more tactical edge. But for all these landmark changes, "traditional" games like Total Annihilation and Supreme Commander played in a familiar fashion, but changed our attitudes with the degree of automation they added that added an extreme, strategic scale to the mix.

For sure, the Wii helped change the way we interact with a game, but has it really changed the way we approach its games? We're still pointing to shoot, jumping on platforms, and using the analog stick to move. For many titles that aren't first party Nintendo, the only true difference has been similar to adding mouse control to console games. Many Wii titles haven't quite changed the way we view the game itself, still relying on the player to approach the title from the perspective of genre conventions. But that's hardly BAD, mind you.

unangbangkay

meltyman

NotTheGuy

Halo did nothing new. It took every FPS before it, dumbed them down, and threw it into Live.

Bioshock did nothing new. It took both System Shock games, put a new theme on it, and threw it into the 40s.

...I think I just made myself a fun new game!

dunetiger reads kotaku, seems pleased

With that said, we truly are going to see the best year that the next gen has to offer this year. We are going to stop using the term next gen after this year, because if you look at all the games coming out that have people excited, the boundaries of what we will have traditionally expected from gameplay will definitely be changing.

Gagamus

It's as though there is no next-gen, only a perpetual current-gen, past-gen and next-next-gen because we've stolen the name, and all that's left is for actual next-gen consoles to sit in moratorium for the rest of their mechanical lives.

kuraitenshikun

cybereality

kuraitenshikun

Well, except for Crysis.

Taco Bell™

Let me AI as an example. True AI needs a lot of processing power, but games don't use true AI. Therefore processing power isn't nearly as important. If you ask my opinion a few developers had already done a wonderful job with AI last gen in games like the Splinter Cell, and Halo series. Jumping to the next level of AI is not about more powerful hardware, but having a team that understands game AI, and giving them enough resources (ie time/money).

My point is that very few gameplay elements are completely reliant on hardware. Most of the time better hardware means that developers can push more of the same. More characters, more physics, more polygons, and it almost seems like the more we do with hardware they less "some" developers focus on gameplay.

jrhawk42

But I feel that "next-gen" like "hardcore" is too relative to be definable. While one person might define "next-gen" as better AI, larger maps, and better physics, someone else might define "next-gen" as a new way to play a genre that has never been introduced to gaming before. Both could be correct, but there's really no definitive, objective way of looking at what's "next-gen".

In a way however, if we're looking for "next-gen" game play the easiest place to find it would probably be on a non-generic control scheme. One that forces you to play a game differently than you normally would. That's not to mean, however, that any game using motion controls or a touch screen is "next-gen" material. I just think it would be easier to make something "next-gen" in the way of game play on the Wii or DS rather than the 360 or PSP.

NeoAkira

Callidux

insomniac

billnabors65

Kadian

Looks like we don't really have a Current-gen...

Kr!s

'Next-gen' 'AAA' et al are the products of PR parasites that have infiltrated the industry - a symptom and sign of how the games industry is becoming *just like any other industry* due to corporate takeovers and mergers and outsiders trying to get a slice of the pie.

We should never use these phrases again...and should hang our heads in shame for being so easily led astray.

ErskinPig

Wii Fit takes gaming to a user base who never considered it before. It's managed to grab a whole genre of player who haven't ever really been grabbed before, on a ridiculously large scale. The same could be said of Brain Training on DS, but the numbers aren't as big there, so it's a weaker example.

WoW is the same sort of thing. It took MMO's to a scale never imagined before. I mean compare, say EQ or Lineage, or whatever was most popular before it, to the over ten million subscribers WoW has. That's a pretty dramatic change, maybe worthy of a next-gen label.

I know they're nothing like what others have suggested to be next gen gameplay. But if next gen isn't about the hardware specs, and it's not about the controller method, then maybe it's about the user base, and those two games have done dramatic things to the user base.

DuctTape

RykinPoe

Erwin

Most games on the Wii suck ass because the controls are unnaturally forced on them for the sake of innovation. Overall it's why I think the Wii fails as a platform. Sure the first party games are good but everything else is mostly crap.

I'm not against innovation but I think it's stupid to claim all games need to be completely innovative. Innovation CAN help a game but it is by no means a requirement.

I also think Halo 3 is a terrible example. It evolved enough to bring a fresh experience while sticking to the basics. Most of the time I just want to scream: "OF COURSE IT FUCKING PLAYS LIKE HALO 2! IT WAS DESIGNED THAT WAY BECAUSE PEOPLE LIKED HALO 2." I mean why did everyone expect Halo 3 to evolve into portal? It's still fucking Halo.

Complete innovation is the territory for new IPs (Dead rising, Okami, Portal, etc). Evolution (Partial innovation) is the territory for returning IPs or sequels.

If I buy a sequel it's because I liked the first one and I want more of the same experience. Minor innovations like new weapons / map are more than enough to draw me in and make a familiar game play experience fresh.

Iron_Dragon_2.0

they LOOK like new things, rather than the same shit i've been throwing into my game systems the past 9 years.

ManjiKengo reads DuneTiger reads Kotaku, seems pleased.

I wish they had made the AI a bit more reactionary to how much gear you are loaded out with / gave the choice to go only with the hidden blade for the highest amount of stealth. The more loaded out you are the better chance of getting noticed.

Also the whole folding of the hands = STEALTH! was just silly personally.

I did enjoy the amount of work put into the level design, but the whole leap of faith thing with the hay was a bit over used personally. And the guard AI was real bad, ganking one guard right next to his friend who doesnt notice till only after the fact.

Then again it was their first big project so a lot of the problems I really dont mind, and just hope that they learn from them and improve on it in the next AC game.

Witzbold

Jopan

The Wii has the most potential when it comes to offering new forms of gameplay (and the DS too I would say). Games like Warioware and even Wii Sports offer something really new.

One game which comes to mind is the Wii version of Pro Evolution 2008. It completely changes the way soccer games are played. And after reading IGN's review it seems like the kind of new experience which should be offered to us.

reddevil3

But I look at next gen systems and games like I look at HD tv. New technology, but same product that does the same shit, just makes it look PURRRRDY.

When you watch tv on HD...what the hell are you really seeing that you didn't see on the old tv besides an enhanced glossy look? You're not really seeing tv in a whole new way..it just looks extra shiny..even shinier than things when you look at them with your own two eyes. All you're really getting is a tv that doesn't take that much room on a stand cause it's on your wall instead.

So next gen really is no different. It's everything we're used to already, but spruced up with a different size. Sure...they can add more enemies, better AI, more media configurations that can be spread online..these are nice additions...but WHERE IS THE GAMEPLAY? Why are all the FPS games I have for my 360 THE EXACT SAME SHIT? Why are there barely any good action/adventure games anymore since they're coming in some intervals when we used to get bombarded by them in the SNES & Genesis-PS2 days?

What can be offered that would make video games inspire all of us to be excited again? All of us see these jazzed up graphics and are happy to try these games...but do you feel as overjoyed to play a game as you used to as a kid..when the games were so revolutionary and cool...you had no choice but to get good grades so you could waste 6 hours playing them?

I don't know anymore...I just think the game industry is a reflection of our society in general...we're satisfied with the same old shit..just as long as it looks different from the shit we just finished with.

Batousi

SkutSkut

Yeah right......Liquid ocelot wanting to control the worlds nano-machines. That's rich. I'd like to see Jake Snake be in that story.(don't get me wrong...I'll get mgs4 but seriously....expectations are low.)

ManjiKengo reads DuneTiger reads Kotaku, seems pleased.

Rockwallaby

It's not about the puzzles, it's about the fact that the puzzles were in three dimensions and incorporated zany physics that up until this game was released was something that most people wouldn't have even imagined, let alone been able to experience. Narbacular Drop players aside, everyone starts playing Portal as a newb, learning skills that they never would have gained before, and by the end of the game they are doing things that they previously would have deemed impossible - all with relatively real world physics. Portal requires you to think about the existing world in a new way, and I feel that is truly next gen.

@Witzbold: Im guessing why a lot of game companies dont try something overly ambitious is because they fear production costs along with trying to convince the "investors / suits" to shell out for their budgets and what not when trying to sell the ideas.

Exactly. These forums are occupied by hardcore gamers, and I feel like the vast majority of you have the right idea about the directions that games should go in. Sadly, most developers and publishers don't want to sell you games, because the pool of casual gamers is so much larger and so much more lucrative.

Guess what these players like! The pretty shiny graphics, which makes sense because they've been watching movies their entire lives as opposed to playing games, and they can't handle the "step down" in quality. Plus, they aren't tired of the same old thing being rehashed because they haven't played it before.

First and foremost, making games is a business, and sadly this means that the industry has the same thing as all other businesses on its mind. Kudos to those that take chances and try to innovate; you are my heroes and the exception to the rule.

UltimatePancakeSensation

unit

The gpu is also extremely outdated. The gpu is barely better than the 7800 gt.
Both the 360 and ps3 will NOT be able to run Crysis at a decent frame rate on high settings.

Lets get this straight, the ps3 is not innovative.
It's a semi high end computer with a blu-ray player and an innovative cpu(from IBM). It has motion controls, but PALES in comparison to the wii.

Wii = most innovative console out right now, however because its graphics suck people tend to not admit it.

Also, MGS4 is not a revolutionary game. People tend to forget about the WONDERFUL new western controls which make it look like it plays exactly like re4 but with the ability to move while shooting.

ManjiKengo reads DuneTiger reads Kotaku, seems pleased.

MightyKAC

VGJ

You have WarioWare DS and GBA, I suppose, but let's be honest...they pale when compared to the Wii iteration.

Sensai

Mister Adequate

floppylobster

Anywho, to business. What constitutes next gen? Do we really want next gen, or do we rather want innovation, and we simply expect the power of new technology to make that innovation either easier or more profound?

Of course, there's also the inevitable question of whether something next gen really is enabled by the new technology, or whether it simply allows a shinier version of something we could have had anyway. Morrowind shows that Oblivion was possible, it's just shinier now. Dead Rising, on the other hand, would likely have been doable earlier, but would simply not have been the same game. Further, an idea I've had for awhile now, of a whole city with dynamic infection and environment, where you're basically just thrown in and told to survive - could we do that today? Or do we need to wait until 2011/12 when the new stuff's coming out? I reckon we've basically got what we need today, and more technology would just shine it up nicer.

Then there's innovation in controls or, the Nintendo strategy (With a deferential nod to Guitar Hero). But the mere process of new control schemes can't itself be called next gen, because we can look at DDR for a full on movement-based control scheme, or lightgun games for something that goes way back that doesn't use a regular controller. Therefore whilst a new control method might offer oppurtunity, it has to be properly exploited, and that's something I don't really feel is being done too well. The DS, for instance, only has a very few games that genuinely use the touch screen business to great effect. Certainly some of those use it to really really great effect (Trauma Center, EBA), most either feature it as a convenience or, worse yet, find a perfectly good control scheme ruined because the touchscreen has been shoehorned in.

I've not got enough experience with the Wii to talk about that, but I see very few games there that use the controls innovatively. Sports games are all well and good but motion sensors for the purposes of bowling or baseball probably aren't then apex of what could be done.

I think one of the fundamental aspects of the entire affair is simply scale. Assassin's Creed was innovative, but was it next gen? Probably not. There's no reason it couldn't have been on earlier consoles. Same goes for Skate - a game that probably innovates more with analog sticks than 80% of the Wii's combined game library does with motion controls. Oblivion really only uses the increased graphical power. Uses it extraordinarily well, but Morrowind (And Arena and Daggerfall) evidence that what was done there could be done earlier. But Dead Rising, that's somewhere that I think it really did benefit greatly. Perhaps GTA IV will fall into the same camp. What we can really do now is scale. Huge, open worlds. Battles involving hundreds of units (Dynasty Warriors 7 better really start taking advantage, because 6 is not a big enough step up from 5) are possible now, and honestly, who doesn't want to be in a full-on fleet battle in something like Colony Wars?

Oh, yeah, and we've had terrain deformation since at least Magic Carpet, as was mentioned. To say nothing of Red Faction. But then maybe Geo-Mod fell by the wayside because that gen just couldn't do it well enough?

Mister Adequate

jitty9

thejakeman has died of dysentry

Well lets take a look at this........
Xbox 360 = an xbox with an updated CPU, GPU and better online but STILL basically 4-5 year old PC Tech.

Wii = an upgraded Gamecube with motion sensing controller and REALLY old tech processor-wise.

PS3 = Ultra fast processors, Built in HD, great online and motion sense (though not as advanced as the wii) controller but devs are DREADFULLY slow in maximizing its potential because its A. hard to develop for and/or B. Expensive to make games for and/or C. doesn't have the user base (as of this writing) as its competition or what have you.

So why aren't we getting next gen game play? Simple. Last-gen gameplay and last-gen hardware STILL make the big bucks, produces the lowest risk (ppl will buy FPS's , sports games and minigames until the end of time....) and utilizes the least amount of man hours/resources. And the platform with the potential to produce the MOST innovation (argue and fanboy-label me all you want but more features = more possibilities = more potential for innovation) is the one that currently no one wants to go out on a true limb for for it due to the reasons above (reaaaallly hoping MGS4 will change this) ..... Next gen gameplay WON'T happen until the devs want it to OR the consumers start to DEMAND it. And Personally I'm not sure which one its more unlikely.

MightyKAC

Now before we all get confused here can someone please give me a good definition of next gen?

FP_slomo788

globones

Spartan1308™

SkutSkut

thejakeman has died of dysentry