The Playstation / Nintendo 64 generation was a landmark breakthrough - suddenly 3D gaming on console was the norm.
The Dreamcast, PS2, Gamecube, Xbox generation was another, smaller, landmark - suddenly 3D looked good. If you ported a previous generation game to the new generation, you got instant results - your textures were perspective correct, you stopped having a lot of sorting issues, yada. At first, a developer could impress people without doing much, if any additional work.
You do a straight port of a current gen game to the new next gen - it looks identical. Unless you're hooked up to an HD TV. The burden is definitely on the developers to prove that these new systems are worth upgrading for.
I'd almost think that maybe this could be the generation where people wise up and realise - "Maybe I don't need a new game console" - but it won't be. We'll see massive marketing budgets. We won't be able to get away from the Xbox 360 and PS3 advertisements. People will buy these consoles like hotcakes without even knowing why they should. Or shouldn't. And someday there'll be a killer app for them, that isn't available on a previous console, and I'll have to buy one.
"At first, a developer could impress people without doing much, if any additional work."
Hmm this effect will get stronger as tech progresses, slowly it will not be an issue of how well the HW is technically exploited, but of how it is artistically exploited. By this I mean such things as having x many polys onscreen ay 60fps will be less important than the quality of textures, and structuring of those polys in the models.
Of course this applies to graphics and sound, I think code has already passed that corner, and gameplay is now generally not held back by memory and processing limitations.
Posted by: Factory | August 13, 2005 at 04:19 PM
"And someday there'll be a killer app for them, that isn't available on a previous console, and I'll have to buy one."
You say that now, but I bet you wind up getting one sooner rather than later. Practically everyone I know says the same thing as you, but almost all of them wind up conceding that they'll probably just get one or both (Xbox 360 or PS3) soon after launch anyway.
Posted by: Aaron | August 13, 2005 at 04:35 PM
For the first time, I have no plan to pick up a next-gen console at launch, and I'm a gamer. The average consumer honestly cannot see the difference between a high quality Xbox game and GTA, which is crap graphically. I really don't think we're going to bowl people over with visuals this time out, especially if we go for photorealism and approach the uncanny valley.
What I'm hoping for is that we finally break the shackles of photorealism. Just as synthesizers make lousy guitars, they make for awesome new sounds. Where are my awesome new art forms that are enabled by computer graphics? Perhaps we can find a spark there?
I'll wait for the price to come down this time.
Posted by: Brian Krueger | August 13, 2005 at 11:22 PM
Do the next gens really look that identical? I don't think Unreal 3 would ever run off of a PlayStation 2 for instance. Perhaps current gen just made 3D look good, but the next gen might make them look great ... which has always been enough for the consumer. Heck, the entire PC game industry seems based on this premise.
Posted by: Josh | August 14, 2005 at 07:07 AM
Pretty sure I won't - I didn't with the previous gen. Ico made me get a PS2, Splinter Cell made me get an Xbox, and Metroid Prime made me get a Gamecube. None of those were launch titles.
Posted by: Jamie Fristrom | August 14, 2005 at 09:15 AM
If you can see a "big difference" between current and next gen games (of which there are admittedly few non-total-bullshit examples of the latter), then chances are you are a game developer, graphics programmer, or someone who reads gaming publications religiously and gets taught all the little terms to look for ("normal mapping", etc). Unless I'm totally mistaken such people are very much in the minority.
I said a while ago that the hardware makers are going to have to resort to side-by-side screenshot comparisons to demonstrate the differences between current gen and next gen titles (LOOK, MORE PIXELS!!) and I stand by it.
The stage is set for game marketing's greatest hollow triumph yet.
Posted by: JP | August 14, 2005 at 11:54 AM
do consumers buy consoles like they buy dishwashers? why does madden sell a million copies every year despite only incremental updates?
also i have to agree with josh. the returns are diminishing but the graphical arms race probably won't end just yet. my mom can tell the difference between these two:
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2004/news/02/18/ut2004/ut2004_screen001.jpg
vs.
http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2005/152/928234_20050602_screen002.jpg
Posted by: Fran | August 14, 2005 at 02:06 PM
Well, those two shots are a bit apples-oranges... a better comparison would have been a UT2k4 character against a black background with a custom lighting setup (the lighting especially makes a huge difference, outdoor light tends to be more even / washed out and less dramatic).
The big question is, is that a $300-400 difference to her? Especially when the games are going to be selling for $60 each?
Make no mistake, Microsoft is pushing the "HD Era" so hard because they took one look at how the Xbox2 stuff was looking on a normal 480i display, and realized hardly anyone would appreciate the difference. Cart drives horse, as it so often does in this industry.
Posted by: JP | August 14, 2005 at 02:32 PM
Jamie - you are much stronger willed than me. I wish I had the wherewithal to hold off on new console purchases. I think I'm just going to lay into the 360 at launch. (but I do get monetary incentive to do so as well)
Posted by: Aaron | August 14, 2005 at 09:13 PM
"Well, those two shots are a bit apples-oranges... a better comparison would have been a UT2k4 character against a black background with a custom lighting setup"
OK. Here ya go: http://www.nextgen-engine.net/img/screens/malcolm.jpg
I definately see a difference, and it does indeed go beyond polygons. With these new engines there are new rendering and lighting tricks that a console like the PS2 simply isn't capable of. I don't own a HDTV and don't plan on buying one anytime soon, but I probably will get a nextgen sometime in the coming year.
Posted by: Josh | August 15, 2005 at 06:38 AM
I do believe that we will see benefits right away even if we are running the next gen on our 10 year old tv.
I don't necessarily see the major benefit of the next gen being in poly count or in fps but just as much in the story itself, we will be able to pack way more hooks and supports into a scene that helps to increase the drams/action/horror of our games..
Posted by: DrBitchy | August 15, 2005 at 09:12 AM
Gamer d00ds have been trained to look for stuff like per-pixel lighting, just like they've been trained to ignore all the huge visual problems that games exhibit all the time - characters moving robotically, having weird or blank facial expressions, and inconsistent fidelity levels across the same space. Until we devote just as much attention to those as we do to squeezing in MOER PIXELS, MS et al's talk of making gaming into a wider cultural pastime is totally deluded.
Posted by: JP | August 15, 2005 at 02:03 PM
"Please explain how more powerful hardware will accomplish this"
Because there's only so much you can shove to a screen with the current hardware at any resolution. Once again, not just polygons in general ... but objects as well. There's so many other dimension than just screen resolution that I don't even get what all this HDTV hubbub is about. I'd much rather see more realistically lit worlds, more interactive worlds, worlds with realistic clutter and crowds the just pumped up clarity.
What about the recent fluff comparing racing pics with real world pics? That's the kind of hype which will result in gamer demand asking their moms for these things. As for that guy's mom ... she ain't even gonna look at the back of the box.
Posted by: Josh | August 15, 2005 at 03:18 PM
I was quoting, specifically:
"but just as much in the story itself, we will be able to pack way more hooks and supports into a scene that helps to increase the drams/action/horror of our games.."
What do you mean by "hooks and supports", and how exactly will newer, more powerful hardware lead to better stories/drama/horror etc?
Posted by: JP | August 15, 2005 at 03:24 PM
Well I shouldn't have spoken for the doc, but my assumption was that scenes could be more interactive, more full, more anything, simply because you can do more scripting, have more objects, etc. But I could be off and maybe he meant something else?
Posted by: Josh | August 15, 2005 at 04:33 PM
You don't need powerful hardware for any of those things. Katamari Damacy presented a completely new and different kind of interactivity, and it had a very simple art style, and used a very simple graphics engine. The physics-based gameplay was the innovative part, and that was pulled off very capably by the "aging" PS2.
Posted by: JP | August 16, 2005 at 10:03 AM
I understand fully well that we do not 'need' more powerful hardware to do these things.
Josh you spoke for me well. "scenes could be more interactive, more full, more anything, simply because you can do more scripting, have more objects, etc."
Sure many games at this time can fit in this explanation, but let your minds eye see how much more could be added into any one scene, more detail all around.
Posted by: DrBitchy | August 16, 2005 at 12:38 PM
Katamari had a simple art style in part because of it's level of interactivity. Nor was it a true physics engine, nor was it even the level of collision the designer originally had in mind and several things which were cut because of the PS2 engine.
Now, you compare that to an online game with true a physics engine being used online with a fancy renderer and high polygon models ... it's a completely different beast. There's no way you could do that with the current gen hardware, you can barely do it with current gen PC hardware. It's going to take the next gens to deliver it. And having an immersive, interactive, online arena ... that's a pretty compelling reason to plunk down some cash.
Posted by: Josh | August 17, 2005 at 07:13 AM
"you can barely do it with current gen PC hardware. It's going to take the next gens to deliver it."
You seem to have some pretty wild expectations built up around the next generation of consoles. They are no more powerful than any top-of-the-line PC I could put together, TODAY. I honestly don't understand why people think the new systems will be capable of anything more than that. Please stop buying the hype. We already have "immersive, interactive, online arenas", and if we make better ones in the future they are going to be driven primarily by innovations in design and craft rather than more megahertz.
"Nor was it a true physics engine, nor was it even the level of collision the designer originally had in mind and several things which were cut because of the PS2 engine."
1) The term "true physics engine" seems bankrupt of any meaning in this context.
2) Katamari Damacy was a very, VERY impressive technical achievement, all the moreso because of the hardware it was running on.
3) Would it really have been a *better* game if it had had that extra stuff? Design is not about adding stuff until it's great.
Posted by: JP | August 18, 2005 at 07:47 PM
"you can barely do it with current gen PC hardware. It's going to take the next gens to deliver it."
You seem to have some pretty wild expectations built up around the next generation of consoles. They are no more powerful than any top-of-the-line PC I could put together, TODAY. I honestly don't understand why people think the new systems will be capable of anything more than that. Please stop buying the hype. We already have "immersive, interactive, online arenas", and if we make better ones in the future they are going to be driven primarily by innovations in design and craft rather than more megahertz.
"Nor was it a true physics engine, nor was it even the level of collision the designer originally had in mind and several things which were cut because of the PS2 engine."
1) The term "true physics engine" seems bankrupt of any meaning in this context.
2) Katamari Damacy was a very, VERY impressive technical achievement, all the moreso because of the hardware it was running on.
3) Would it really have been a *better* game if it had had that extra stuff? Design is not about adding stuff until it's great.
Posted by: JP | August 18, 2005 at 07:48 PM
"you can barely do it with current gen PC hardware. It's going to take the next gens to deliver it."
You seem to have some pretty wild expectations built up around the next generation of consoles. They are no more powerful than any top-of-the-line PC I could put together, TODAY. I honestly don't understand why people think the new systems will be capable of anything more than that. Please stop buying the hype. We already have "immersive, interactive, online arenas", and if we make better ones in the future they are going to be driven primarily by innovations in design and craft rather than more megahertz.
"Nor was it a true physics engine, nor was it even the level of collision the designer originally had in mind and several things which were cut because of the PS2 engine."
1) The term "true physics engine" seems bankrupt of any meaning in this context.
2) Katamari Damacy was a very, VERY impressive technical achievement, all the moreso because of the hardware it was running on.
3) Would it really have been a *better* game if it had had that extra stuff? Design is not about adding stuff until it's great.
Posted by: JP | August 18, 2005 at 07:49 PM
ecch. sorry about the triple post.
Posted by: JP | August 18, 2005 at 07:51 PM
"They are no more powerful than any top-of-the-line PC I could put together, TODAY."
Right. Hardware that costs about $2,000 - 3,000, or even more. You're comparing apples and oranges at this point. Most games don't shoot for that, because the vast majority of people don't have top-of-the-line PCs, whereas on a console they all get to shoot for that and most of the limitations are based on software techniques like compression, etc.
"We already have "immersive, interactive, online arenas", and if we make better ones in the future they are going to be driven primarily by innovations in design and craft rather than more megahertz"
No, we really don't the kind of immersion online that we could ... having worked with Karma and the current Unreal Engine and read what Epic has planned with UE3, it's just not the same playing field.
"The term "true physics engine" seems bankrupt of any meaning in this context."
There is an ocean of a difference between what Katamari considers physics and engines like Havok, Karma, etc. Yes, Katamari was an excellent game. I love it to death. When did this become an argument of design over technology? I'm simply saying that if I sit a PlayStation 2 game next to a PlayStation 3 game, there's going to be some pretty noticeable differences - and not just for the serious geeks out there.
Posted by: Josh | August 18, 2005 at 08:06 PM
"Most games don't shoot for that"
But some do. Unreal3 does, and while it's very nice it's not going to *fundamentally* change anything other than Cliff's spring 2006 wardrobe.
"No, we really don't the kind of immersion online that we could ... having worked with Karma and the current Unreal Engine and read what Epic has planned with UE3, it's just not the same playing field."
You seem to be conflating immersion with graphical fidelity, and while the former can certainly contribute to the latter, they are simply not the same.
I'm sorry, but an online game with higher fidelity and slightly more physics feedback (most of which will be non-core-gameplay relevant like wind, and more decoration-ish objects in the simulation) is ONLY going to be significantly more "immersive" if you are a graphics whore. Normal people are honestly not going to care that much. They have not been trained by marketing and press to notice bullshit like pixel shaders and light blooms.
Normal people expect the game worlds they see to look and behave like the real one they inhabit. They get immersed by things like good artwork, good character animation, good lighting, good audio, and an interface that doesn't get in their way. I've already seen several "next-gen" games get these basic things wrong, and honestly all the polygons in the world won't save them.
We need to stop expecting technology to make things magically, inherently better. For the vast majority of game concepts out there, we are past the point where tech was holding us back from creating them. I brought up Katamari Damacy because it's a wacked-out, technology-driven concept that would have seemed utterly impossible 10 years ago, and it was accomplished with ease on fairly primitive hardware.
The continual, *increasingly desperate* fascination with the new hot shit is distracting and harmful.
Posted by: JP | August 18, 2005 at 08:26 PM
Also, I can't speak for Havoc, but Karma would crack up and die if you tried to do with it the things Katamari does. "Better", more generalized tech doesn't even necessarily create the most impressive results. Katamari's physics were simple and goofy (objects wobble like toys when you smash into but fail to roll them up) on purpose.
Don't even get me started on how underwhelming multi-core performance is going to be for early Xenon/PS3 titles.
Posted by: JP | August 18, 2005 at 08:33 PM