richardiox wrote:Usually this wasn't the case. This generation, it turned out to be so. If you wanted to play quirky games you largely hard to reach into the downloadable games catalog on the PS3/360, whereas the Wii had hordes them (high or low quality, whatever, still hordes) compared to PS3/360. The midrange market and the market for quirky localizations and smaller retail games completely disappeared to the point that some publishers had to depend on download markets to release retail games from another market. That's just a really shitty situation.
Which brings me back to the original point. Regardless of how the libraries of the various systems ended up due to the overwhelming power difference, how many of them actually used that power difference to advance some aspect of game design significantly? Like I said before, Assassin's Creed is an obvious choice, but Skyrim and Oblivion? I really liked both of those games, but for all the boasting of different features, neither one did such a great job of advancing on Morrowind or Daggerfall's gameplay. Both of them have about as much evolution as Wind Waker to the Wii Zeldas to give a comparison of a similar game.
I'm not making up this question because I want the Wii U to be victorious or though the Wii was better than the other two, or any of that malarkey. I'm asking it because I genuinely wonder. I've played a sprinkling of those games, but not nearly as much as most people on this forum since I was more into portables. However, the reason I was more into portables was because the power of they allowed for all sorts of games to be made without sacrificing the ability to make to bring to life ambitious ideas that would not cut it for download-able games. They didn't have the either/or of the Wii or the strict narrow vision of most PS3/360 games. They kept the balance that has been preserved until this generation. So that's why I'm put off from console gaming now.
Theoretically, for me, the ideal is for the next Xbox and PlayStation to balance power and affordable development environments and retail markets for developers. However, part of this depends on whether we really saw significant strides in gameplay due to the power of 360 and PS3 in the majority of games.
Presentation is very important, I'm aware of that. All of Act Raiser's concepts could have been achieved on the NES/Famicom. Super Contra or Super Mario World, could not, they used the rotating sprite features, the transparency, and the ability for the Super Famicom to move larger sprites around to great effect as well as the number of sprites it could push being important to both games' design. This does not mean that Act Raiser should have been done on the NES/Famicom. Would anyone think its a good idea to sacrifice Yuzo Kushiro's lush symphonic score for chiptunes? Or the amazing atmosphere in the stages or the rushing zoom down from the heavens into the stage that was so dramatic? None of that is essential to how it plays. 95% of Act Raiser can be done on the NES/Famicom, and it probably still would have been an immortal classic due to the genius of the ideas behind it, but I certainly welcome the graphic and auditory boost. (To make it even more clear, Skyrim and Oblivion are like Act Raiser, Assassin's Creed and Dead Rising are like Super Mario World and Super Contra.)
My question is how many Act Raisers are there on the 360 and PS3 compared to Super Contra or Super Mario Worlds? Since it is simply going to be more expensive next generation, how many other types of games are going to fall by the wayside? Is a sacrifice of some power worth it so that those games can be continued to be made? If you really consider the HD library this generation, how many games do makes advances in AI, physics, game world, processing, scope and so on due to the hardware? And how much of that is just smoke and mirrors because it looks and feels more impressive?
Edited by JinTypeNoir at 00:56:40 17-09-2012
#9009836, By JinTypeNoir Wii U
JinTypeNoir 4,338 posts
Seen 5 days ago
Registered 9 years ago