What do the next-gen twins bring to the table?

  • 56 results
  • 1
  • 2

This topic is locked from further discussion.

Avatar image for gamecubepad
gamecubepad

7214

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: -12

User Lists: 0

#51 gamecubepad
Member since 2003 • 7214 Posts

They offer x86 development and more indie-friendly policy. In that sense, more stability and greater variety.

Avatar image for locopatho
locopatho

24259

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#52 locopatho
Member since 2003 • 24259 Posts

"It is my belief that a console needs to justify its existence with unique qualities and innovations"

Yup that's total shit. A console just needs to have great games and be a significant jump forward in power over the previous gen.

You don't need to reinvent the wheel to be triangular. That's the gimmicky nonsense thinking Nintendo rely on.

Avatar image for MirkoS77
MirkoS77

17657

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 3

User Lists: 0

#53  Edited By MirkoS77
Member since 2011 • 17657 Posts

What huge innovation has the Wii U introduced? A touchpad--nothing that hasn't been done years previous on other tech--not to mention on their own handheld. What cracks me up is Nintendo fans love to trump their system (of which I own, just to clarify) as some major innovation in the market whereas Sony and MS are doing "more of the same" or are offering something "nobody asked for" (which is complete malarkey , people have been clamoring for new tech for years), yet they fail to understand that in doing so Nintendo has anchored down and severely restricted the U with something that is far from innovative, nor even very useful.

Yet Sony and MS, by investing in technology that is not eight years old, opens doors and affords new creative freedoms and efficiency to developers where it truly matters relative to gameplay: things like better physics. Better A.I. Larger worlds. Better load times. Better frame rates and resolutions. New mechanics and smoother transitions between them (Arkham Knight's seamless flow from the Batmobile to flight is exemplary of this) granted by more memory. And keep in mind, we are just at the start of the gen. The potential has barely even been touched. Look at Uncharted 1 compared to TLoU to gain a perspective on the degree of disparity that will become apparent as years pass.....we are going to see some truly amazing shit. Those who are now saying that what we've been given is more of the same or not really differentiated from the past are saying this because they are incapable of seeing things further than 2 feet in front of their nose.

I can admire Nintendo's philosophy to an extent.....but I will never, ever agree with compromising core technological advancement for such things like the Wiimote or touchscreen. Truth is, it comes off to me like Nintendo simply slaps whatever (ultimately) superficial gimmick on their systems just to be able to tout how unique they are in their approach, and so it can reinforce their own little delusion that they are the only true innovators. No, they "innovate" with cheap ass garbage. The way I see it, this philosophy is largely an impediment to real innovation where it counts.

I mean, really.....what innovations did the Wiimote accomplish? The only game that even came close to realizing the potential of that trash was SS, one game that even then still suffered due to how inadequate and cheap that motion sensor was (so much so it needed an upgrade to be bought, and even then, constantly recalibrated). I don't even has to ask what the tablet has done for gaming. A complete afterthought thrown in by the big N because "hey, phones and tablets are now the big thing, and we need something to show we don't compete and do our own thing", and they know their little parrot defense force will come out and spout how this makes them so special. When in reality, all of their hardware innovations introduce nothing of any noteworthy significance. What they DO do is blind this company to the fact that innovation can most definitely be found in the software, and that that innovation is enabled by better specs. What is found in the silicon, not necessarily what is always held in your hands.

Avatar image for HalcyonScarlet
HalcyonScarlet

13663

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 2

User Lists: 0

#54  Edited By HalcyonScarlet
Member since 2011 • 13663 Posts

This is the first gen which feels like there isn't a whole lot new. I think the PS4 and Xbox One are more of an extension from last gen rather than the evolution like pretty much all previous consoles were from one gen to the other.

Graphics not withstanding, so far the only decent new addition is an increased physics capability from what I've seen. The rest is the same. It's disappointing and really quite unexciting.

Between gen 6 and 7, there was pretty much a big improvement in almost every area I think.

Avatar image for foxhound_fox
foxhound_fox

98532

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 13

User Lists: 0

#55 foxhound_fox
Member since 2005 • 98532 Posts

Not much besides the promise of exclusive games. Most of what they are capable of is done several times better on the PC.

Avatar image for Heil68
Heil68

60710

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 1

User Lists: 0

#56 Heil68
Member since 2004 • 60710 Posts

@MirkoS77 said:

Consoles are for playing games.....that is ultimately the only justification needed for their existence.

Yup and consoles have exclusives worth playing which makes the hardware worth owning,

Avatar image for tormentos
tormentos

33784

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 0

User Lists: 0

#57  Edited By tormentos
Member since 2003 • 33784 Posts

@mariokart97 said:

Keeping this discussion simple and unbiased, I do not own either of the two next-gen systems(Xbox One or PS4) and I would like to know the unique features for both. In the same way that the 3DS allows stereoscopic 3D or the Wii U has a controller with a tablet sized screen, what unique qualities does the PS4 or Xbox One have that no other console has?

Since it is my belief that a console needs to justify its existence with unique qualities and innovations, I would like to apply this mentality to the new next gen consoles.

In the past this mentality has proven worth while in determining the overall worth of a system. For example:

N64- Introduced the modern joystic

PS1- Introduced dual-joystics and clickable sticks as well

Dreamcast- Web Browser

Wii- Motion Control

NES- D-Pad

and the list goes on...but you get my point.

SO what justifies the Xbox One and PS4's existence??

NonNintendo didn't introduce the Joystick,Atari had one of those befre the Snes even existed.

The dreamcast didn't introduce web browser either,the Saturn it was sega but you tag the wrong console.

The wii didn't introduce motion unless you want to completely ignore the Eye Toy which was release because the wii,hell even MS for PC had a contrller name sidewinder freestiyle (which i use to own) that supported motion.

The wii U tablet is a joke and is innovative in nothing bro.

Unless you mean twins like this ^^ i don't think. lol

Avatar image for pyro1245
pyro1245

9397

Forum Posts

0

Wiki Points

0

Followers

Reviews: 10

User Lists: 0

#58 pyro1245
Member since 2003 • 9397 Posts

What do they bring to the table? A mild step up in graphics and a slightly better digital market. New controllers too. A few exclusives here and there.

@speak_low said:

They bring you your games, that's what.

A majority of the AAA games you just can't wait to play on PC were funded by the massive contributions of the PS360 and PS4/X1 sales. PC does fairly well but on its own, but it's not enough. Wii U is worthless in terms of revenue.

Take away Sony/MS and just have it be PC + Wii U, and watch AAA games like MGS 5, GTA V, Batman: Arkham Knight, Watch_Dogs, Far Cry 4, Mass Effect 4, and Destiny disappear or cut down significantly in scope or style. PC is going to fund all of this by itself? That's some painful carrying on the shoulders right there.

....

A lot of the good games coming out these days have been crowd-funded. AAA games are good in theory but lately we've been getting formulaic rehashes. I agree there is a lot of money in consoles which leads to more funding for games (If the publishers don't spend it all on ads). To be honest I don't think I'd mind if the AAA scene disappeared though I would miss MGS (Kojima could definitely do some crowd-funding though, people love MGS). I think BioWare could still do it's thing with Mass Effect without EA and console funding.

And as for the Wii... well it has the most promising exclusive line-up regardless of revenue. I'm glad they are doing their own thing, the Wii U is the only system that still feels like a console.

One thing we've learned from the past few years is that if people like the idea for a game, they will be willing to fund a project. I think it's a good way to go even with the few failures. Games are for the people, not big companies. Lately it seems AAA games are made to make a profit first, and to deliver a fun gaming experience second.