What is Next Gen

[mlk]

Sorry, empty forums are very upsetting.

As one of the unlucky souls not to be able to justify spending £350 on a console and a couple of games, I've had to relay on going round a friends, and playing on his. And I'm unimpressed. We spent a good few hours going through a number of the demos, and having a quick blast. Not a single game felt "Next Gen". Sure Burnout had cooling looking damage, but nothing else jumped out at me.

We ended up playing Geometry Wars, which is fundamentally a 16bit game.

My list of Next Gen is: Overpriced, Over-hyped and Internet Enabled.

So I must have missed a game which makes NG shine. Which will make me want to go out and buy a nice new shiny toy (and HD TV). So what is it? What game should I try?

[Silver_Derstin]

So what is it? What game should I try?

White Knight, when it comes out on PS3. I was ****ing crying during the demo I saw online.

[Dagrak]

The next gen games are, from my view, the games that offer what you couldn't get before and I'm not talking graphics. Most of the launch titles for the 360 whilst fun games were really just normal games but with spanglier graphics. Dead Rising I think starts to show what next gen is about, focusing on what you can do and the processes in the game rather then the graphics. This means things like crowd simulation and advanced AI. For me this is why I'm looking forward to Assassins Creed as it seems to show an actual advancement in gameplay rather then graphics. Sadly games have to advertise to the "ignorant masses" so they'll focus on the pretty before they draw people in on actual skill.

[ZippyDSMlee]

mlk
The simplest was to describe next gen is the technological leap in gaming like fro the SNES to the PSX every Leap in technologies brings you the "Next Gen" of gaming.

TO me I see alot of shallow top heavy games with no depth or gameplay that would merit spending 40 on and well I see that continuing for the most,I mean who wants to play a game with great graphics and physics if the gameplay is reminiscent of the NES days...or at best the gameplay of 4 years ago..



The next gen games are, from my view, the games that offer what you couldn't get before and I'm not talking graphics. Most of the launch titles for the 360 whilst fun games were really just normal games but with spanglier graphics. Dead Rising I think starts to show what next gen is about, focusing on what you can do and the processes in the game rather then the graphics. This means things like crowd simulation and advanced AI. For me this is why I'm looking forward to Assassins Creed as it seems to show an actual advancement in gameplay rather then graphics. Sadly games have to advertise to the "ignorant masses" so they'll focus on the pretty before they draw people in on actual skill.

SO basically any game with above average gameplay is "Next gen"??.....uuummmm ....no..........half of it really is the advancement of the technologies the other half is havening gameplay catch up to graphics...I dont really see that happening for acouple more years that is if the corporate devs can think outside the box anymore......

[Shockz]

Well, what I have to say is that Next-Gen graphical quality is a farce anyway. Half-Life 2 STILL looks better at maxed-out settings (which are becoming easier and easier to attain--my X2 4800+ w/ X1800XL video card can run it smoothly at 4x AA and max everything else) than most 360 and PS3 games that have been released or shown.

[Kharne]

Well, what I have to say is that Next-Gen graphical quality is a farce anyway.

It takes awhile for the graphics to catch up with the hardware. Compare the launch titles of a system to some of the last games made for it and you'll see what I mean.

With that in mind, yeah, the first games on all 3 systems isn't going to look much better then what we're getting now, but give it some time and that should change.

Though to be honest, I don't think we can go much further from here, I mean how much better could you get? I'm starting to wonder if things eventally going to slow down again like it did with the Geneise and SNES in the 16 bit era. Those two systems had a fairly long lifespan.

[Cecil475]

I need to find the data on this but I read that each new system sell less than the system before it. (i.e The NES sold more systems than the gamecube) I don't know how that ties into other systems like the PlayStation and the XBOX
I need to look more into it.

- Warren Lewis

[Kharne]

I need to find the data on this but I read that each new system sell less than the system before it. (i.e The NES sold more systems than the gamecube) I don't know how that ties into other systems like the PlayStation and the XBOX

I've seen that before. I've never seen it in anything of substance as it were (That is, no 'big names' or organizations to back it), but I've seen the graph image that you're likely talking about. If I'm not mistaken, it was focused on Nintendo's sales.

And to be honest, that makes perfect sence: The NES had almost no comptition worth noting. The SNES had Genesis to go against, which was a much closer fight so of cource it sold less then the NES, And now it's a three way war so... you get the idea. More, tougher comptition means the sales spread out more rather then everyone buying the same system. I wouldn't be suprised to lean the PS2 sold a bit less than the PS1 because Microsoft arrived with the Xbox and Nintendo recovered itself a bit with the Gamecube.

[Ack]

Part of the problem with that information, however, is that it's taking it into account for today. So, NES has had over 20 years to outsell its competition. Start checking sales from systems that came out before 1983 and see what they look like.

As for graphics catching up with each console, technology is supposedly increasing at an exponential rate (compare each generation to the last, and you'll start seeing what would be considered bigger jumps). However, technology eventually reaches a peak and levels out, so it's very possible this may happen with game technology soon. The ultimate goal for graphics is to become so realistic, a game image could be mistaken for a photograph. After that, it would only be about stylistic choices, to produce titles like Killer 7...games that don't look real at all. So yes, graphics will reach an inevitable peak. But I don't think they'll reach it until we're at the best possible spot we can be.

[Cecil475]

I've seen that before. I've never seen it in anything of substance as it were (That is, no 'big names' or organizations to back it), but I've seen the graph image that you're likely talking about. If I'm not mistaken, it was focused on Nintendo's sales.

And to be honest, that makes perfect sence: The NES had almost no comptition worth noting. The SNES had Genesis to go against, which was a much closer fight so of cource it sold less then the NES, And now it's a three way war so... you get the idea. More, tougher comptition means the sales spread out more rather then everyone buying the same system. I wouldn't be suprised to lean the PS2 sold a bit less than the PS1 because Microsoft arrived with the Xbox and Nintendo recovered itself a bit with the Gamecube.

Yeah, That chart. and yes that makes sense.

- Warren Lewis