For anyone who adamantly watches the comment sections of blogs as I do will have seen Caleb’s opposition to me on numerous issues concerning the next generation. Caleb and I seem to look at the world of video gaming through entirely different prescription lenses.
“It’s funny that you mention graphics whenever you talk about the next gen. Is this a big must for you? Does the next gen have to look realistic or should it have games that differ from what we’ve seen this generation.” - Caleb
In my eyes, a good game is judged by its immersiveness. Photorealistic graphics and a storyline that is both believable and engaging are required in any game I play. Traditionally, I shy away from sports games, and fighting games - they lack the substance of story. As a precaution, I rigourously avoid simulation games as well, namely The Sims, which I feel is the first iteration of the Wachowski Brother’s apocalyptic future of The Matrix. Otherwise, most games are tolerable in my eyes. The story merely has to engage me, and the world of the game must have enough depth to actually feel one with the story. Originality is necessary, however, it is only necessary in regards to story (Myst) and in-game mechanics (Prince of Persia Wall Running, Metroid Prime Morph Ball/First Person switch, GTA’s absolute freedom).
Naturally, the interface is an important facet of gaming, but I have had no problem with certain actions assigned to various keys. Nintendo’s idea to fashion the future of gaming around the controller is a very limited plan. Gamers will not be easily entertained by modest graphics and story if developers put an incredible emphasize on the control style. Interactive swings, thrust, jabs, shots, punches, and other bodily movements may sound cool, but does it really add anything to the game experience? When you watch a movie, do you insist on acting out every movement of the actor on screen? Do you even desire to manually rotate your finger over and over as the VHS tape fast-forwards, or to make the DVD jump ahead? No. It isn’t necessary. It is like using two sticks to make a fire instead of the chemical advancement of lighter fluid.
Nintendo’s new controller is merely leading us to an age where we will virtually be smashing a chisel against a rock in an effort to discover the wheel.
Caleb’s brutal slanders of the XBox 360 in his recent comment were completely unfounded. While most of the early releases for the XBox 360 are sports games, the system has been out for less than a week. Let us not forget that when the Nintendo DS came out, it had a gaming library consisting of…Super Mario 64 DS. The only high-rated game. And it was just a revamp of an older game.
Yet, Caleb’s complaints about the XBox 360 gaming library stem from the fact that it consists of sports titles and sequels. Well, let me ask, what is wrong with a sequel?
Sequels are not the same as their predecessors. They merely carry on the same name, characters and familiar characteristics associated with the original. Sequels are great! Developers collaborate to shed the flawwed game features of the elder game, in order to carry over only the best to the sequel. A sequel presents a new engaging story that is interwoven into the reality of the first, and allows us to relive an entirely new experience with familiar characters.
Looking over the XBox 360 “early launch” gaming library, it is evident that there are some sequels. No harm, no foul. There are some sports titles, but face it, those sell really well to an adult demographic. There are also three original titles. THREE. In a launch library of seventeen titles. That may seem like a small percentage, but no system can unveil all of their original concepts at launch. Any gaming company will tell you that some of their best gaming ideas are kept under wraps to act as fuel to get through the five-year console lifecycle.
So, the XBox 360 lacks 100% originality in their launch titles. Yet, look at the launch titles scheduled for the Revolution. Metroid Prime 3. Super Smash Bros. Revolution. Those are sequels, are they not? This is because Nintendo is notorious for milking their successful franchises. Look at Mario Party (7)? Four versions of Nintendogs? If Nintendo continues milking, the tit will be shrivelled and lifeless.
This brings me to what is seemingly, the biggest difference between Caleb and I. Caleb is a huge Nintendo fanboy (who jumps to the conclusion that Nintendo will save gaming when the PS3 has such potential). I, on the other hand, am willing to look at all three big gaming companies and criticize the holes in their strategies. These holes are doomed to continue into the next-generation.
The future of gaming lies with handhelds, where competition is centred around story, concept, in-game mechanics, and graphics.