Extra Punctuation: Getting Innovation Wrong
- Thread starter Yahtzee Croshaw
- Start date
Recommended Videos
You know what? You're the first person I've ever talked with that gave a decent reason why Blu Ray should exist other than just 'MOAR PIXELS NOW GET EXPENSIVE UPGRADE COS U HAVE TOO!' When you put it your way it actually does make sense. I'm also still a bit bitter how aggressive Sony is with pushing this new crap. I'm quite glad that their UMD format failed, and don't have much against the PS3 personally, but I'm glad to see that their 'power+size=good, justified a huge price tag' marketing didn't work. With any luck they'll treat their customers a bit more respectfully next time, instead of treating them like spoiled kids who will pay anything for the biggest lollipop.Volkov said:
I hate to break this to you, but Apple is actually carrying the ball. Much to my dismay, may I add.
Now, regarding stereoscopic 3D, I'd like to play the devils advocate for a sec. Do you remember when the first "3D" games started to appear? (you know, the flat 3D we've been playing all these years). At that point, we moved from beautifully hand drawn sprites, to blocky, untextured polygons. Back then, people also said we were reducing the graphic quality.
I dislike steroscopic 3D as much as the next guy, but.. just saying.
Now, regarding stereoscopic 3D, I'd like to play the devils advocate for a sec. Do you remember when the first "3D" games started to appear? (you know, the flat 3D we've been playing all these years). At that point, we moved from beautifully hand drawn sprites, to blocky, untextured polygons. Back then, people also said we were reducing the graphic quality.
I dislike steroscopic 3D as much as the next guy, but.. just saying.
With no mind to dig through all the comments to check if anyone else has said the same, I'll dive right into my retort to the following quote:
"... and no new technology has ever lasted that's less convenient to use than what it's supposed to replace."
Nice generalization there. Lots of inventions' first versions were a lot harder to use than the things they replaced.
Case in point: The flintlock rifle versus the (long)bow. The bow can fire as many arrows as your bowman's arms can make it, while the first rifles were only able to fire once every minute or so with experienced reloaders. You had to carry along all kinds of equipment and keep the rifle clean during every battle, while the bow was way more simple and versatile. Wielded by experienced archers, it was more accurate at longer distances than any rifle (even those used by highly trained personnel). If at any step in the reloading procedure a shooter mucks up, he has the chance to lose limbs or even die. Doesn't sound that great on paper, does it?
Similar points could be made about automobiles and horses (horses were more versatile, easier to fuel up and maintain, and did not require roads) and several other very important inventions.
Just because an invention is less convenient it doesn't mean in the slightest it's not going to utterly disembowel their predecessors, and current marketing voids any sort of natural selection through ease of use, of which Apple churns out a new example every other year.
"... and no new technology has ever lasted that's less convenient to use than what it's supposed to replace."
Nice generalization there. Lots of inventions' first versions were a lot harder to use than the things they replaced.
Case in point: The flintlock rifle versus the (long)bow. The bow can fire as many arrows as your bowman's arms can make it, while the first rifles were only able to fire once every minute or so with experienced reloaders. You had to carry along all kinds of equipment and keep the rifle clean during every battle, while the bow was way more simple and versatile. Wielded by experienced archers, it was more accurate at longer distances than any rifle (even those used by highly trained personnel). If at any step in the reloading procedure a shooter mucks up, he has the chance to lose limbs or even die. Doesn't sound that great on paper, does it?
Similar points could be made about automobiles and horses (horses were more versatile, easier to fuel up and maintain, and did not require roads) and several other very important inventions.
Just because an invention is less convenient it doesn't mean in the slightest it's not going to utterly disembowel their predecessors, and current marketing voids any sort of natural selection through ease of use, of which Apple churns out a new example every other year.
I can only tell the difference between normal and HD on a small screen (Monitor for example) but even then it's mostly resolution. I can't even tell the difference between normal and HD on the 19" or my 32" TVs in my house. Not many of my family can. It is useful for some things, but sometimes I do wonder why they need it for everything. Yes, HD probably help distance wise, but my living room/bedroom are not THAT big, and close up it still looks a little pixelated XDmjc0961 said:
Also, 3D makes my head spin: 3D cinemas, 3DS (tried it once, by the time I put it down I had to lie down because my head was aching and spinning), basically anything 3D other than life XD. And I can tell you now: I sure don't need 3D to make me lose my lunch or take 5 minutes to recover. A normal flat screen game (either 8-bit, PS1-3, Gamecube/Wii etc) with a good story line and (at least) half-decent controls and I'm happy. 3D and/or HD are NOT necessary for enjoyment. The need for 3D/HD varies from person to person. YOU may see it as a must, but other people don't and there is nothing that can be done to change that.
It is not about clogging up the display, its about putting the information where your eyes are. Even on the DS most games stick all the critical information on the primary screen instead of the secondary, as you really do not want to waste time switching screens just so you can look at your healthbar. And on the DS both screens are the same distance and close together, with a TV and a controller you would have even bigger issues.Hitman Dread said:
That is not to say that I can't see uses for it, in a slower paced complex military simulation, sure a touchscreen could help quite a bit. But I don't really see Nintendo going into that direction anytime soon and you could get most of the benefits just by sticking a few more buttons on the controller much cheaper.
Having a screen on the controller just sounds to me like a solution looking for a problem. Maybe there is that killer game concept that utilizes it in amazing ways, but even after five years of NintendoDS and playing through FourSwords on the Gamecube/Gameboy I just don't really see it.
I disagree.3d, when done well, is Immerisve.
In avatar, it was used to give depth to the background and secenery.
Bad 3d is stuff popping out.
In avatar, it was used to give depth to the background and secenery.
Bad 3d is stuff popping out.
Okay... I have to say I disagree with Yahtzee on the entire motion-control issue. Maybe it's because I love action-adventure-RPG games, but I found the Wii's gesture controls to be untapped potential. In games that focus on melee combat and the like, the gesture controls allow RPG-type games to have the number of combat options of a Fighting Game with 1/4 the buttons tied up.
I also liked the cursor-like precision I had in the Wii's FPS games (I found Modern Warfare to be far more enjoyable on the Wii than the "superior" 360 version), but what frustrated me was the lack of a thumbstick on the main wiimote for turning.
Honestly, I think gesture control is only as gimmicky as it's implemented. I'm looking forward to whip and sword combat in LoZ: Skyward Sword, but the bow definitely seems like a gimmick. But 3-D is a gimmick.
And HD is pretty nice, especially for text-driven games. Unless I'm missing something special about it, I think I've been taking it for granted.
I also liked the cursor-like precision I had in the Wii's FPS games (I found Modern Warfare to be far more enjoyable on the Wii than the "superior" 360 version), but what frustrated me was the lack of a thumbstick on the main wiimote for turning.
Honestly, I think gesture control is only as gimmicky as it's implemented. I'm looking forward to whip and sword combat in LoZ: Skyward Sword, but the bow definitely seems like a gimmick. But 3-D is a gimmick.
And HD is pretty nice, especially for text-driven games. Unless I'm missing something special about it, I think I've been taking it for granted.
I'll say this, in my opinion the first DS was a success. Nintendo managed to incorporate 2 major innovations into their system (the touch screen and the dual screens) in a meaningful way which added dimensions to gameplay, and that's what caused the system to sell. I was initially skeptical about 2 screens, but after getting the original DS I quickly fell in love with the concept.
The 3DS, however, doesn't really have any innovations other than the 3D, which, in my opinion, is utter rubbish. I was playing around with a friend's (who claims that it is the best thing since sliced bread) and at first had no idea what the 3D was actually doing other than giving me a headache. After playing around with it for a bit while playing the AR games and Pilot Wings, I had the eureka moment "Oh, THATS what the 3D is doing", followed closely by "Oh, THATS not very impressive". Was it a neat little gimmick? Yes. Did it add any value to the game? No.
Additionally, I'm becoming suspicious that Nintendo doesn't think very highly of gamers anymore. One of the big reasons for this is the lack of a second analog stick on the 3DS. The PSP was heavily criticized for not including one, so why didn't Nintendo clue in. Also, Pilot Wings feels like a cheap excuse to steal money from us. I remember greatly enjoying Pilot Wings for the Super Nintendo and the N64 because of the wide variety of levels and challenges. PW:SR doesn't have that, its short and lacking in variety.
I'm not a complete cynic yet, but I feel cheated by the 3DS. Even ignoring the 3D, it isn't quite enough of an upgrade to the DS to justify purchasing, in my opinion.
The 3DS, however, doesn't really have any innovations other than the 3D, which, in my opinion, is utter rubbish. I was playing around with a friend's (who claims that it is the best thing since sliced bread) and at first had no idea what the 3D was actually doing other than giving me a headache. After playing around with it for a bit while playing the AR games and Pilot Wings, I had the eureka moment "Oh, THATS what the 3D is doing", followed closely by "Oh, THATS not very impressive". Was it a neat little gimmick? Yes. Did it add any value to the game? No.
Additionally, I'm becoming suspicious that Nintendo doesn't think very highly of gamers anymore. One of the big reasons for this is the lack of a second analog stick on the 3DS. The PSP was heavily criticized for not including one, so why didn't Nintendo clue in. Also, Pilot Wings feels like a cheap excuse to steal money from us. I remember greatly enjoying Pilot Wings for the Super Nintendo and the N64 because of the wide variety of levels and challenges. PW:SR doesn't have that, its short and lacking in variety.
I'm not a complete cynic yet, but I feel cheated by the 3DS. Even ignoring the 3D, it isn't quite enough of an upgrade to the DS to justify purchasing, in my opinion.
Well most of you guys seem to young to remember, but exactly - EXACTLY - the same thing happened back in the early 90ies, when games where switching from 2D hand-drawn sprites to 3D engines with polygons.
And damn where those first 3D games ugly. Blocky models, flat low-res textures, bad lighting. But almost every new game coming out was called "GAMETITLE 3D" and everyone made big fuss about it.
And guess what, back then many people said "3D sucks, let's stay with 2D, that looks way better." And there where people complaining about headaches and nausea.
It's just history repeating, but this time it's about stereoscopic 3D.
And damn where those first 3D games ugly. Blocky models, flat low-res textures, bad lighting. But almost every new game coming out was called "GAMETITLE 3D" and everyone made big fuss about it.
And guess what, back then many people said "3D sucks, let's stay with 2D, that looks way better." And there where people complaining about headaches and nausea.
It's just history repeating, but this time it's about stereoscopic 3D.
One of the major things that i dont like about 3D is simply not being able to see it. One of the things that these companies are overlooking is that people with lack of depth perception is that they cant see 3D becuase their eyes cant see the images equally. I'm tired of going to movies and being forced to pay for a feature that i cant even see. For people like me 3D is a dead end with no future in our lives.
I like how this quote is acceptable and totally not a fanboy but:exampleAccount said:
This one is probation worthy.Lordofthesuplex said:
Frankly, if I were Lordofthesuplex, I would have pointed out:
1. Fanbois who will buy their shit no matter what.
As opposed to fans of Halo, Call of Duty, Metal Gear Solid, Half-Life, etc.
2. People that just want to play Pokemon, Zelda and SSB.
Because, if it doesn't have "blood n' boobs" in it, it just isn't worth playing.
......Except when it crosses over to the other consoles such as No More Heroes or Dead Space Extraction did. Then it's kewl.
3. Idiots drawn in by cheap gimmicks.
Which is why the other two consoles have been shamelessly swiping everything from Miis to Motion Controls from Nintendo.
4. People that realise that their latest console is bullshit but buy it anyway to justify hating it.
Because massive failure rates and credit card theft is so much better.
5. Your Gran.
Which is a funny statement given that, by selling to people outside the 15-24 male category, Nintendo has done more to make video games accepted as a "lifestyle" as well as the NEA's recent acceptance of Games being art than the other two have put together. It's doubly funny because Sony broke into the market with the PS1 by advertising video games as something that you didn't have to be a basement-dweller to enjoy. This adds just the right amount of irony to these pronouncements when it's a Sony fanboy doing it.
As for this Extra Punctuation:
*Shrug* Yahtzee strikes me as an increasingly bitter old man who is feeling left behind by the industry. It isn't so much that he hates the Wii as he continually makes statements like:
"But with the Wii and 3DS innovation one-two punch that dismally failed to connect,"
except in areas of sales, market, innovation. From that perspective, I can understand why he like the PS3 and the 360 because they are, for the most part, just beefier versions of their predecessors. But the fact that he's already beginning to trash the new Nintendo console before it's even out.....Well, actually, that's pretty much what I expected him to do. In this, I suppose I have to admire the fact that he is remarkably consistent.
Because disliking one company automatically makes me a fanboi of one of the other two?thepyrethatburns said:
Look, I buy nintendo products myself (DS's) because I want to play pokemon. I wasn't saying those where bad games, just that they are the only ones worth getting a Wii or DS for.
And yeah, the other consoles are ripping off motion controls but they had other selling points before hand.
The point is, Nintendo isn't moving the gaming medium forward at all. All there new stuff is shit.
It does when your post amounts to just trolling people for buying a console.exampleAccount said:
This is true in the same way that there is no reason to buy a 360 if you are not a Halo Fan or a PS3 if you are not an MGS fan.exampleAccount said:
Yes, for 18-24 year-old males who are content in playing consoles that were just beefier iterations of the previous one.exampleAccount said:
Nintendo, on the other hand, has actually managed to bring in more new gamers than the other two combined.
Because your "extensive" knowledge of Nintendo's product as well as your blind fanboyism makes you the best judge of Nintendo's market appeal.exampleAccount said:
But, hey. It's not like your sentiments aren't repeated ad nauseum on Gamefaqs/Gamespot so they must be right.
I want to say 3D is a fad. But then we all thought Wii motion controls was a fad, and it's less convenient than controllers. But nope, everyone jumped on the bandwagon. For what reason? That there are millions of potential customers who don't play games will now have brand loyalty? Didn't those same people leave their Wii to dust? And their Kinect?
But as long as the company gets the sale, they don't care how long you spend on the product.
I could see this thread full of probation badges.
But as long as the company gets the sale, they don't care how long you spend on the product.
I could see this thread full of probation badges.
We're at a plateau right now where technical capacity can't really advance anymore without surpassing our ability to design games that will utilize it (on an affordable budget).
We were there back in the 80's with the original NES too. The next step up was the video arcade game that cost thousands. Didn't make sense. So the main focus had to remain on making better quality games through game-play, level design and story. You couldn't out-do the competition with graphics only.
Game designers should be focusing on making better games or figuring out if there is a new category of game that should be created (what's the next FPS?). 3-D sure as hell ain't the answer because it makes the game WORSE, not better.
We were there back in the 80's with the original NES too. The next step up was the video arcade game that cost thousands. Didn't make sense. So the main focus had to remain on making better quality games through game-play, level design and story. You couldn't out-do the competition with graphics only.
Game designers should be focusing on making better games or figuring out if there is a new category of game that should be created (what's the next FPS?). 3-D sure as hell ain't the answer because it makes the game WORSE, not better.