The future of gaming

[askani son]

IMO a list of good PC games ABSOLUTELY has to contain some form of Age of Empires game.
I bought AoE collectors edition a few weeks ago and still play at it. Online play just damn rules!!

[lost in thought]

Its true 2D is where we all started but so what? I dont get what you're trying to say here.

I am trying to say that companies should have more respect for it than they do. Companies used to respect the style, and during the original PlayStation's time, we had many games in 2D, and many in 3D; what I am saying is, for an artform that has been around since... 1983, that still stands strong, you would think developers would show it the due it, and it's fans deserve.

Well I would say they did that to keep the hardware market moving. They must reckon that 2D games will slow people desire for better graphics and thus slow down the rate at which new hardware sells at. They loose respect from me for that one.

They got rid of it, for profit, nothing else. They believe the consumers want 3D, and nothing less.

Rubbish mate, neither of these things are dead. You either have too narrow a view or are playing the wrong games.

Neither is dead. You can still find games with some originality, and many with story. It's just not so easy to find at times. Truthfully, the same can be said for movies though.

Originality is dead however, nothing on consoles, or movies to date is anything more than a rehash of some past story. Every idea has long ago been done, in every which way.
And story, well, it is partially dead; because these companies are usually incapable of pulling together a decent one.

As far as the games I play... I play RPGs, and Platformers. I've been playing them for years, so I know when somethings wrong with a game.

Not all companies do this, you must be playing the wrong games. None of the games I'm playing these days focus entirely on the graphics. Not unless I buy them just because they do.

You're jaded by these companies, they have you believing the majority of their sub-par products are excellent. ALL games today focus on graphics, this is an unflappable truth, companies believe that the better their graphics are, the more units will sell. This is an absolute.
Because of this, you sacrifice quality in other areas, but because you've been spoon fed the same quality since the consoles beginnings, you believe no quality sacrifice has been done.

That will never happen. Gaming is here to stay and its never going to fall apart like that. Not in a million years, its too mainstream now.

It seems some people are unhappy and want to go back to 16 bit consoles, its not going to happen, adapt to the changes dont try to keep stuck in the past. Stop being stuck in the mud and like I keep saying; broaden your gaming horizons forget the constrictive labelling of genre's and cultivate a purer love for gaming as a whole. Then you will see there is plenty of innovation, care and gameplay around today.

Actually, with the constantly rising prices, if the trend goes as it is now, this coming generation will be the end of it. $400 for a system and $70 for games is pushing things as is. The next gen after the coming one will probably be pushing $500/600 a system and $100 a game. There's only so high you can push prices before people stop paying.

When that happens profits will nose dive and the industry will fall apart. The only way they can prevent this is cost reduction. Cost is high due to the ammount of power put into their consoles. Lower the graphical power, divert that to processing ability that can allow for more complex games, and you're good. That's what the GC was cheap, it didn't try and push things too hard like the other systems. I'm betting the Revolution will be the cheapest this time around.

Atleast someone can understand the consequences of the road heavily traveled. People aren't that quite dumb as to continue buying consoles at exorbent prices, just to fulfill a gaming need.

The console developers recognise nagging power and know they will get many pre orders and early sales from young people. Hence they price skim. Price skimming is a business term for releasing a product into a market at a high price and reducing it later. If you think $500-$600 is a lot for a console please come and live in Ireland for a while Wink

The X-box and PS2 were first released at $490-$590 and have reduced over time. (down to $110 for the X-Box)

This being said the price of games themselves is worrying, as its rising all the time. This is due in large part to the retailers though I think, as PC games are generally cheaper. Some games are first released over here at $75-$85 with the average price for recent games around $67. How does that compare with the US?

Low exchange rates, forcing the MSRP to rise?
And sure, the console prices will drop, but when they do, the company will make nearly nothing on them when that happens [ref: GameCube], especially if you visit a GameStop, EB Games, or other new and used gaming retail store in similarity, if you buy the console used- the company will make no money on said product.

Were coming into a time here where people wont be able to afford these costs, and with the ability to buy it used, at a lower price, and thereby skim the company any dues- you're looking at a company who might not be willing to invest a quarter million into a gaming unit the next time.

And, uh, lost in thought - I think you're exaggarating by saying that story in games has died. If anything, developers are more concerned with story, because it became one of the selling factors for the games, and not only RPGs and adventures. There are much more games with complex and interesting story than 10 years ago. Remember the exciting and multi-layered story of Pac-Man? That's right, you don't. Because it was never there.

I never said Pac-Man had story, I am talking about classic RPGs.
Look at it this way, back in the day [even as far back as the Nintendo] we had RPGs that had a long, and involving story, because you could not express what you wanted unless it was done in text. So there, you've got your involved dialogue, to give your people personality, and a story that while working with a tired formula, it shows depth because it makes up for the lack of visual quality.

I also believe you're kidding yourself right now, developers couldn't be more disinterested with story if it became a flesh eating bacteria. I've played nearly every RPG available for both the PS2, and the GameCube, and I've noticed above all that the story is always shallow, and depends on what is on screen to respresent what they're meaning, in fact, most of the games today don't even express things verbally- and merely show you an FMV of said character doing something, and talking.
To me, this sacrifices the quality of story, and allows it to stagnate and die.

[Xyex]

What, you cant save that amount of money over 5 years? It took me less that that to save for my current PC which was much more expensive and I didnt have a regular job. Its well within most people's means.

I'm lucky if I've SEEN $500 in the last 5 years, and that's counting the $450 I got as a graduation gift in 03. My dad and I live off around $600 a month because he's disabled and the job market in this town blows. Trust me, the average person has other things that money needs to go to that only the addict would fork over $500+ for a console.

I am trying to say that companies should have more respect for it than they do. Companies used to respect the style, and during the original PlayStation's time, we had many games in 2D, and many in 3D; what I am saying is, for an artform that has been around since... 1983, that still stands strong, you would think developers would show it the due it, and it's fans deserve.

They got rid of it, for profit, nothing else. They believe the consumers want 3D, and nothing less.

You know, I've been thinking about that. There were a fair number of 2D games on the PS1... so if what you say is true, and there's still a market for said games, then the companies would have seen this through sales and kept making the games. But apparently they DIDN'T see sales of a level that indicates a still existing market. They don't drop something on a whim, they test and see what's wanted. Apparently, despite your desire for 2D games, they found the majority doesn't.

You're jaded by these companies, they have you believing the majority of their sub-par products are excellent. ALL games today focus on graphics, this is an unflappable truth, companies believe that the better their graphics are, the more units will sell. This is an absolute.
Because of this, you sacrifice quality in other areas, but because you've been spoon fed the same quality since the consoles beginnings, you believe no quality sacrifice has been done.

I never said Pac-Man had story, I am talking about classic RPGs.
Look at it this way, back in the day [even as far back as the Nintendo] we had RPGs that had a long, and involving story, because you could not express what you wanted unless it was done in text. So there, you've got your involved dialogue, to give your people personality, and a story that while working with a tired formula, it shows depth because it makes up for the lack of visual quality.

I also believe you're kidding yourself right now, developers couldn't be more disinterested with story if it became a flesh eating bacteria. I've played nearly every RPG available for both the PS2, and the GameCube, and I've noticed above all that the story is always shallow, and depends on what is on screen to respresent what they're meaning, in fact, most of the games today don't even express things verbally- and merely show you an FMV of said character doing something, and talking.
To me, this sacrifices the quality of story, and allows it to stagnate and die.

You're seriously blinded by your own opinnions. You've decided already that other areas must suffer for high graphics and so that is what you see. FFX, Xenosaga, .hack, Kingdom Hearts, ZoE, MGS2, and Ico (just to name a few) are games with very nice graphics, gameplay, and story. Far more indepth stories for a number of those than a lot of older games. I've never cared more for a pair of fictional characters than I did for Ico and Yorda, Kingdom Hearts sucks me into it every time I play and I forget I'm actully playing a game at all, Xenosaga's story is complex as is the story of MGS...

Like I said, as much as you claim everyone else is blinded by the industry's attempts at hiding the bad things you're blinded by your own preset beliefs that things suck now, beliefs spawned by the fact that change has occured and you weren't able to keep up.

[Chuquita]

I like both 2-D and 3-D; but if the new consoles are really going to cost around $500, I doubt I could afford them.
Heh, by the time they go down in price they'll probably be at the same starting price the ps2/xbox/gamecube originally went for. ^_^;

While I love how the Budoukais came out using 3-D, other titles, like the Sonic games, don't look right in it.
Depends on the character design and who you have designing the actual game I guess.

[oponok]

It's interesting that we should be discussing console affordability. With a recession that's only going to get worse in the United States (you can thank your current President and government) and a game market that's counting on increasing income, things obviously might get difficult.

I see where both sides are coming from in this argument. From my perspective, it's true that 2D games are about dead on consoles, with the vast majority of developers sinking effort into preexisting franchises and genres. In the market, this effectively smothers the few creative titles (and hence why X-Box is ahead of Nintendo...).

HOWEVER, there are SOME companies still working on original products, such as Nintendo and Capcom (both with wonderful new 2.5D game series: Paper Mario and Viewtiful Joe, respectively). However, most of these companies have both the financies to back up such work and the talent to create.

HOWEVER AGAIN, if consumers continue to stop supporting such products, these companies will either fade away or join the crowd, leaving us with EA and Rockstar, at which point I will definately stop buying games.

HOWEVER ONCE MORE, this is not the fault of 3D games. 3D is obviously put to fine use some times, and can be a healthy part of gaming's future.

HOWEVER, more companies need to start thinking outside trends. With only the US and Japan making games, we have no cultural variety like we do with film and animation (again, check out "Tale of Tales" and the work of the Brothers Quay), and so we really mostly see the same kinds of games being made to meet the demands from only two parts of the world. And with games being so utterly popular in the US, these demands may soon meld into one.

[Aurek]

You're jaded by these companies, they have you believing the majority of their sub-par products are excellent. ALL games today focus on graphics, this is an unflappable truth, companies believe that the better their graphics are, the more units will sell. This is an absolute.

You are completly wrong here. Xyex said it well:

Like I said, as much as you claim everyone else is blinded by the industry's attempts at hiding the bad things you're blinded by your own preset beliefs that things suck now, beliefs spawned by the fact that change has occured and you weren't able to keep up.

If you even knew the games I was talking about in that list you would know how wrong you are and I dont understand how you propose to offer opinions of gaming as a whole when you admit you only play two types!?

HOWEVER, more companies need to start thinking outside trends. With only the US and Japan making games, we have no cultural variety like we do with film and animation

Another point for the PC games industry, where developers exist in other places than those. Oh and you left out england by the way

[Xyex]

It's interesting that we should be discussing console affordability. With a recession that's only going to get worse in the United States (you can thank your current President and government) and a game market that's counting on increasing income, things obviously might get difficult.

As much as people like to blame things on the current President the world doesn't work that smoothly. The problems started long before he took office and only compounded with 9/11. Things are starting to make a rise again, but it's slow. Anyway, back to the topic....

Another point for the PC games industry, where developers exist in other places than those. Oh and you left out england by the way

I hate PC games. HATE, HATE, HATE. Too many compatablity issues. So far, of my old games, the only one I've found that works on this computer is Sim City 3000.

[oponok]

I don't blame the current government for starting our current economic problems, but I greatly blame them for perpetuating it. PM me if you want my detailed explaination, but I'm sure we all concur that this is hardly the time and place.

I didn't forget England: how could I forget those who birth Rayman and Wipeout (I think they started there). However, I don't see England as a major force in gaming.

[Kodoshin]

Pretty sure Rayman was started in France, at the least he was created by a French fellow if I recall correctly.

[lost in thought]

You know, I've been thinking about that. There were a fair number of 2D games on the PS1... so if what you say is true, and there's still a market for said games, then the companies would have seen this through sales and kept making the games. But apparently they DIDN'T see sales of a level that indicates a still existing market. They don't drop something on a whim, they test and see what's wanted. Apparently, despite your desire for 2D games, they found the majority doesn't.

I highly doubt with a company like Sony, there was any 'fact finding' at all, and more just a corperate decision that "3D is the way of the future, lets try to be first with the best".

You're seriously blinded by your own opinnions. You've decided already that other areas must suffer for high graphics and so that is what you see. FFX, Xenosaga, .hack, Kingdom Hearts, ZoE, MGS2, and Ico (just to name a few) are games with very nice graphics, gameplay, and story. Far more indepth stories for a number of those than a lot of older games. I've never cared more for a pair of fictional characters than I did for Ico and Yorda, Kingdom Hearts sucks me into it every time I play and I forget I'm actully playing a game at all, Xenosaga's story is complex as is the story of MGS...

Like I said, as much as you claim everyone else is blinded by the industry's attempts at hiding the bad things you're blinded by your own preset beliefs that things suck now, beliefs spawned by the fact that change has occured and you weren't able to keep up.

Thank you for judging me, oh great Buddha.
I am not blinded by anything, and I don't believe all games suck; you're taking everything I've said far and away out of context. I know other areas have suffered, so let me knit-pick for you:

Final Fantasy:
Lets look at a game with a suitably lack luster story, poor controls, and excellent graphics. When will you try to convince me that FFX, and X2 aren't the black-sheep's of the series?

Xenosaga:
I never said I didn't like Xenosaga, so don't assume things. Anyway, with Xenosaga, lets look at it's faults, it does have a lot of story, which in some areas are transparent; it's also heavy on the FMV's, as well as spoken dialogue, which is a plot device to convey, and move the story on to the next part. As enjoyable as Xenosaga is, an excess of spoken dialogue ment to further the story isn't going to fix the over-use of FMV's, which effectively break up the flow of the game.
[Remember in classic games, they didn't have anything like FMV's, so they used an ingame mechanic to convey actions like those found in FMV's, and inherintly keep you in the flow of the game.]
Note: I really like Xenosaga, but I am not going to deny it's faults, because I like the game.

.Hack:
Bottom line, I've never played such boring ass games in my life as I have the .Hack series... the few unique points of it, like trying to make the people seem real, so you believe you're online, and having people send you emails majorally in 'leet code', doesn't help a poor game overall. The story may be there [in small doses], and the cutscenes may be in game [which is one of it's redeeming qualities] but it just doesn't hit it out of the park in other respects.

Kingdom Hearts:
Get this streight, I adore this game, as well as it's sequel. Even this game has it's faults, but a large redeeming factor is it's uniqueness, which unless Square makes a game with Peanuts characters, I doubt will ever be matched again by another series.

Zone of the Enders:
I've never played this title, so I will not judge it. [I don't judge what I haven't played.]

Metal Gear Solid 2:
This one I have played, and I do like. It like it's predecessor are decent games, which rely heavily on visual expression, but one large fault of it is the controls; you've got a game that not only relies on visuals but controls, and any way you try to paint them any differently- they just aren't as good as they should be.
Splinter Cell's controls are effectively what Metal Gear Solid 1, and 2's controls SHOULD have been. That there is a series that did things right for once, even with it's own flaws. [Note: MGS3 effectively fixed the flaws of it's predecessors, to a great extent.]

Ico:
I've never played it, and I don't really want to. I am not about to say it's a bad game, despite it being a 'sleeper hit', I will however say that the visual style turned me off of it right away.

And to clarify, I am not about to say that classic games don't have their flaws, but a lot of the companies who made games back then took the little they had [or purposely used] and made games that were adventures of the mind, that allowed you to enjoy them for what they were at the core of themselves, not what they are on the outside.
When I, and anyone I know, plays an RPG we put ourselves in the shoes of the hero, and for games that used 2D- that was a mental affair, that allowed your mind to sort of wander through the adventure as you physically progressed through the game.
If anything I can say will have any meaning what-so-ever: it was mental stimulus of a whole 'nother kind, that is in my opinion better, and more rewarding than what we're given today.

HOWEVER, more companies need to start thinking outside trends. With only the US and Japan making games, we have no cultural variety like we do with film and animation (again, check out "Tale of Tales" and the work of the Brothers Quay), and so we really mostly see the same kinds of games being made to meet the demands from only two parts of the world. And with games being so utterly popular in the US, these demands may soon meld into one.

Very true.

At the end of the day, everyone who supports 3D games over 2D games, when both can be a viable art form in today's market, are just bemused by the mainstream effect of gaming, that you've lost sight of what actual quality can be. In a time when 3D is the major staple of gaming, I am not saying that it's bad, but I am saying that it's excessively boring.
Because of the formula of these companies, I've become bored by games today. In order to effectively sell a product to the public you've got to be diverse, and like oponok said, we're stuck with American and Japanese games, so said diversity in development is lost. It's just like when Budokai 2 came out, that the art-style which is 3D- was something new, a new look that had almost never been used before then, and brought something new to the game, something the previous game didn't have aesthetically.
I am not speaking much differently here for 2D, we're coming at a time when the development of 2D has progressed exponentially, which gives developers freedom to create high-quality visuals, while holding true to an style over 20 years old.

If you can't follow what I am getting at as a whole, let me simplify: I have no problem with new games in general, except the constant 3D becoming stale and boring. I believe 2D is viable enough to see a game or two, on any of the consoles, at the very least. As well, I also believe that developers are putting far too much into 3D, far too little into everything else, and because of escalating needs to make said 3D, things are going to fall at the console developers feet, when consumors cannot afford to buy said high price consoles.

[Aurek]

I hate PC games. HATE, HATE, HATE. Too many compatablity issues. So far, of my old games, the only one I've found that works on this computer is Sim City 3000.

Heh, its not like its a problem consoles dont share, try and play an N64 game on your GC

Compatability issues do annoy me though when I want to play some real oldies, a lot of the time you can get things working though it just takes a bit, ok a lot of effort. Though its still absoutily no reason to hate PC gaming as a whole, I'm going to assume you were exagerating a bit

I didn't forget England: how could I forget those who birth Rayman and Wipeout (I think they started there). However, I don't see England as a major force in gaming.

How wrong you are:
Current companies like Elixir studios, Lionhead, Team 17, Bioware. And older companies no longer around like SCI, Bullfrog etc. Though the number of companies there has reduced greatly (and still is) many, many classic games have come out of England.

Another factor to consider with regard to the 3D/2D issue is this. Sales/mainstream concerns aside, companies want to use 3D over 2D. Why? for two reasons.

• It allows them to produce more
• It is more flexible

The majority of the time, creating 2D art assets in far more time consuming than creating 3D assets, this is a fact. More time spent on art means less time on other areas if costs are to remain the same. This means simpler games, not more complex ones. The is also large limitations on 2D, there are things you simply cannot do in a pure 2D environment such as physics and dynamics.

Note that I do know what I'm talking about, I have learnt much about games development over the years as its what I want to do with my life. I have experience in messing about with some of the various aspects of development though obviously I'm no expert.

[Xyex]

Thank you for judging me, oh great Buddha.
I am not blinded by anything, and I don't believe all games suck; you're taking everything I've said far and away out of context. I know other areas have suffered, so let me knit-pick for you:

I never said you said they all suck. You're general tune has been that the current crop of games are bad. I was merely stating that things aren't as bad as you seem to think. And so now, my turn to nit pick.

Final Fantasy:
Lets look at a game with a suitably lack luster story, poor controls, and excellent graphics. When will you try to convince me that FFX, and X2 aren't the black-sheep's of the series?

Lack luster story? Poor controls? The controls work just fine, I see no problem with them. The graphics are pretty good, yes, but so what? The game, with FF7 or even FF1 graphics would be the same game. I'd like it just as much. The story is very good, nicely detailed, well paced, and holds a nice twist that, while it can be decerned before revealed, is twisted yet again later. Since I've not played FFX-2 yet I wont comment there.

Xenosaga:
I never said I didn't like Xenosaga, so don't assume things. Anyway, with Xenosaga, lets look at it's faults, it does have a lot of story, which in some areas are transparent; it's also heavy on the FMV's, as well as spoken dialogue, which is a plot device to convey, and move the story on to the next part. As enjoyable as Xenosaga is, an excess of spoken dialogue ment to further the story isn't going to fix the over-use of FMV's, which effectively break up the flow of the game.
[Remember in classic games, they didn't have anything like FMV's, so they used an ingame mechanic to convey actions like those found in FMV's, and inherintly keep you in the flow of the game.]

I never said you said you didn't like it. It's merely one game that came to mind for an example. And ya, it's got a good deal of FMV's and talking, but it's a large and detailed story and a game that attempts to immerse you into a world by allowing things that aren't exactly relevant to be seen, much like a TV series or a movie would do. And FMV's no more break the flow of the game than any story point would, even the simple text portions of old games. One thing I like about Xenosaga is the detail to the story, the care taken to immerse you into that world, by effectively showing you that world through it's cutscenes. It's like an interactive movie, which while not everyone's kind of thing, is fun to me. I love getting into stories and caught up in the characters. *shrug*

And, er, what classic games are you playing? Pac-man? The old Atari games even had them in their early forms. The gameplay pauses and the characters hold a converstaion, sometimes the image on screen even changes from the player to some other place or event.

.Hack:
Bottom line, I've never played such boring ass games in my life as I have the .Hack series... the few unique points of it, like trying to make the people seem real, so you believe you're online, and having people send you emails majorally in 'leet code', doesn't help a poor game overall. The story may be there [in small doses], and the cutscenes may be in game [which is one of it's redeeming qualities] but it just doesn't hit it out of the park in other respects.

Now, I've only played the first game thus far, but the only thing resemling 'leet' I've seen in e-mails is Aura's jumbled attempts to communicate. And ok, sure, the fighting can get dull at times, but all RPGs have that problem. But the 'simulated MMORPG' idea is a nice twist to a normal RPG and the story has good details and it's intriguing.

Metal Gear Solid 2:
This one I have played, and I do like. It like it's predecessor are decent games, which rely heavily on visual expression, but one large fault of it is the controls; you've got a game that not only relies on visuals but controls, and any way you try to paint them any differently- they just aren't as good as they should be.
Splinter Cell's controls are effectively what Metal Gear Solid 1, and 2's controls SHOULD have been. That there is a series that did things right for once, even with it's own flaws. [Note: MGS3 effectively fixed the flaws of it's predecessors, to a great extent.]

I've thus far only played MGS2 so it's what I'll comment on. I've had no troubles with the controls, zero, zip, zilch, nada, none, you get the point. I just don't get how you could have trouble with the controls...

Ico:
I've never played it, and I don't really want to. I am not about to say it's a bad game, despite it being a 'sleeper hit', I will however say that the visual style turned me off of it right away.

To each his own I suppose. The surreal look and artistic beauty of it intriuged me, and I like puzzler style games, so I decided to give it a try. It's graphics are stunning and beautiful even against some of the best graphics out now and yet it's plot, told through gameply far more than FMVs and dialogue (of which there's little) is deeply emotional. The plot itself is simplistic, much like a fairytale, but it's charm and ability to attach you to the chacter's emotionally are it's power.

When I, and anyone I know, plays an RPG we put ourselves in the shoes of the hero, and for games that used 2D- that was a mental affair, that allowed your mind to sort of wander through the adventure as you physically progressed through the game.
If anything I can say will have any meaning what-so-ever: it was mental stimulus of a whole 'nother kind, that is in my opinion better, and more rewarding than what we're given today.

And how does 3D remove this element? I'll admit that a lot of RPGs now have full stories with full characters instead of trying to make YOU the character, sure, but I find myself identifying with them all the same. (Though, I will say with the case of Squall, it's because it really did feel like it was me, since our personalities are so much alike.)

Heh, its not like its a problem consoles dont share, try and play an N64 game on your GC

Compatability issues do annoy me though when I want to play some real oldies, a lot of the time you can get things working though it just takes a bit, ok a lot of effort. Though its still absoutily no reason to hate PC gaming as a whole, I'm going to assume you were exagerating a bit

Ya, I know. I sold my 64 and games since I didn't want to deal with 2 systems. Kinda wish I hadn't, but eh, too late now. And ya, those issues are frustrating, but it's not entirely the same. A computer is a computer, a GC is not an N64. Same concept but still different. It's the reason I got a PS2, so I could have access to more games. It's one thing I'm looking for in new consoles as well.

And no, I wasn't exagerating. I spent a good deal of money on my PC games and now they wont work. I do not like that. But there's more reasons than that. I don't like using a keyboard/mouse to game either, for one.

Another factor to consider with regard to the 3D/2D issue is this. Sales/mainstream concerns aside, companies want to use 3D over 2D. Why? for two reasons.

* It allows them to produce more

* It is more flexible

The majority of the time, creating 2D art assets in far more time consuming than creating 3D assets, this is a fact. More time spent on art means less time on other areas if costs are to remain the same. This means simpler games, not more complex ones. The is also large limitations on 2D, there are things you simply cannot do in a pure 2D environment such as physics and dynamics.

Note that I do know what I'm talking about, I have learnt much about games development over the years as its what I want to do with my life. I have experience in messing about with some of the various aspects of development though obviously I'm no expert.

Indeed. That's one of the major things going for 3D. They can make a single 3D model and then make that do ANYTHING they want it to. Where as in 2D you need to make each frame of animation seperately. 3D allows for easier designing in the over all. Granted, high-end 3D required greater attention to detail, but ease of manipulation is still there.

[Aurek]

[Remember in classic games, they didn't have anything like FMV's, so they used an ingame mechanic to convey actions like those found in FMV's, and inherintly keep you in the flow of the game.]

What? FMV's were the only way of progressing story in the majority of games for years. They were heavily used everywhere wether it be ingame cutscenes, lots of text, rendered fmv's or whatever. Its only now games are progressing the story naturally and interactively.

And no, I wasn't exagerating. I spent a good deal of money on my PC games and now they wont work. I do not like that. But there's more reasons than that. I don't like using a keyboard/mouse to game either, for one.

Its still no reason to dislike PC gaming as a whole, you could have spent just as much money on console games you can no longer play. Plus like I said there are ways to get older games to run on newer PC's and if worst comes to worst its easy to get an old PC out of a bin somewhere and play your older games on that. Something it is harder to do with consoles.

What games are you trying to play?

The keyboard and mouse issue is just one of familarity. Its seems strange to you using a keyboard and mouse and thats only natural if you are used to controllers, they are very different things. If you took some time and got used to it though, you would see how they are superior for some types of games. And on the other hand a controller is superior for other types of games.

[Adnan]

In my opinion I think we're rushing too quickly into the next generation of consoles. In retrospect, it's true that the average lifespan of consoles has always been around 5 years but those were during the days when after 5 years those consoles no longer produced anything fresh or different.

I find that with this generation of consoles, their potential have still not been fully exploited. I mean, even 5 years on, they still continue to surprise and wow us. For example, God of War on the PS2 and the new Zelda game on Gamecube (I'm sure there are many other examples). Early PS2 games didn't look that much better than PS1 games but gradually, as developpers understood the machine better, they started looking better and better. And that trend hasn't stopped yet.

I think new consoles should only be released when current ones have reached their peak (in terms of evolution). In reality though, I see the console makers are prematurely releasing the new consoles for the sake of maintaining (Sony) or changing (MS) the status quo with regards to market share.

[Aurek]

Well Sony has to release a new console now. The Xbox and Gamecube have more time left in them in terms of graphical potential and PC's have far outstripped them all (as always happens due to their nature). The PS2 is showing its age and cant keep up anymore, it would be suicide for them not to release a new console.

[Adnan]

The only reason Sony is releasing a new console is because MS is. The only reason MS is releasing a new console is to gain a greater foothold in terms of market share. In other words, they're not releasing consoles out of technical necessity.

I disagree with the argument that the consoles (including PS2) are showing their age. Even the PS2 manages to pull off feats and suprise us once in a while, such as with GT4 and God of War. As long as the potential to improve and surprise is there, there's no need for new consoles.

[Kodoshin]

I think we are moving to the next systems too fast, the average next gen game is going to be $60.00 before tax, the fact that we face such a price hike ($10) is proof that we are moving forward too fast.

[Aurek]

In other words, they're not releasing consoles out of technical necessity

I think they are to a certain extent, there have been plenty of multi-format games I have seen recently that could have been better had they not been released for the PS2. Though I do get surprised every now and then with how far they have stretched its limitations.

The only reason MS is releasing a new console is to gain a greater foothold in terms of market share

Of course, it makes sense. A business is there to make a profit after all and MS didnt get to where it is today by sitting on its laurels. Sure agressive tactics, stealing and outright bullying had a large part to play but still, you get my point

[lost in thought]

Another factor to consider with regard to the 3D/2D issue is this. Sales/mainstream concerns aside, companies want to use 3D over 2D. Why? for two reasons.

It is more flexible

Well sure, I am not here to dispute 3D's abilities, merely the companies over use of the style, and under-use of judgement in the thought that maybe one of the games they produce, may be better told in 2D as opposed to 3D. And maybe, because of that, they can give players a bit of a change of pace.
[Change of Pace can be relative to situations, if you look at games like Sly Cooper, and Jak and Daxter. They were both done in a less realistic form of 3D, yet the graphical quality remained. You could say that theres a time, and place for everything, even 2D, yet.]

Note that I do know what I'm talking about, I have learnt much about games development over the years as its what I want to do with my life. I have experience in messing about with some of the various aspects of development though obviously I'm no expert.

I used to want to develop games myself, back when I was 16. I am 20 now, and I've learned one thing over my travels of life: There are far too many developers as it is, and it's almost an impossible field to break into, unless you've got some raw, untapped talent for it, that a company might accidentally stumble across; like Cliff Bleszinski for instance.

Indeed. That's one of the major things going for 3D. They can make a single 3D model and then make that do ANYTHING they want it to. Where as in 2D you need to make each frame of animation seperately. 3D allows for easier designing in the over all. Granted, high-end 3D required greater attention to detail, but ease of manipulation is still there.

Actually, 2D creation is far easier than 3D. With 3D sure you can create a model, but people spend countless hours designing the skins for them, for locations, for everything. This is a long and drawn out process that is much, much more difficult than 2D.

Lack luster story? Poor controls? The controls work just fine, I see no problem with them. The graphics are pretty good, yes, but so what? The game, with FF7 or even FF1 graphics would be the same game. I'd like it just as much. The story is very good, nicely detailed, well paced, and holds a nice twist that, while it can be decerned before revealed, is twisted yet again later. Since I've not played FFX-2 yet I wont comment there.

I've actually played FFX, and it does have a lack luster story, and poor controls. I found myself bored of the story by the first pilgrimage. However in this instance, what I am getting at is, Square ended up with a transparent story, while trying to make everything else, not just graphics.
As well, you cannot tell me there is no flaw in the controls. In battle controls are pretty fluid, granted, but every other area short of walking around, and talking to people, is less than fluid in every respect.
And as far as the story goes, you may like it, but the majority of hardcore fans I've known, or met at various gaming locals that I've visted, all seem to agree that FFX/X2 is horrible. [While going on to try to convince me how good 9 is, and then tell me how much they like FF7/8, and why.]

And ya, it's got a good deal of FMV's and talking, but it's a large and detailed story and a game that attempts to immerse you into a world by allowing things that aren't exactly relevant to be seen, much like a TV series or a movie would do. And FMV's no more break the flow of the game than any story point would, even the simple text portions of old games. One thing I like about Xenosaga is the detail to the story, the care taken to immerse you into that world, by effectively showing you that world through it's cutscenes. It's like an interactive movie, which while not everyone's kind of thing, is fun to me. I love getting into stories and caught up in the characters.

Well sure the story is pretty grandiose, but whether you are willing to believe it or not, FMV's do break the flow. Think about it for a moment, you're playing a level that is about 10-20 minutes long, and whenever you come to a plot point, it stops the game, and shows you a clip of said action, I am not sure about you, but I get an immediate sense of reality when that happens.

Sure FMV's are nice, but when they are misused, they really fuck around with a game. I don't know about anyone else, but when I am playing a game, I don't like to be interupted DURING the level, with FMV's. After is okay, after is fine, but during is just a step too far.

I am not against furthering the plot through Full Motion Video, but the least they could have done, was merely have an in-game automated conversation. [All of this above, is one of the reasons why people were turned off of Xenosaga in the first place.]

And, er, what classic games are you playing? Pac-man? The old Atari games even had them in their early forms. The gameplay pauses and the characters hold a converstaion, sometimes the image on screen even changes from the player to some other place or event.

Thats an entirely different thing. You're still in-game, and like you said it merely pauses gameplay, not flips, does a load time, shows a movie, and slaps you back in said spot.
There's a difference between FMV's [Full Motion Video], and the sort of game-play mechanic used to pause gameplay, and automate a conversation. [And as I said above, FMV's are better kept for when you've completed an area, not during one.]

Now, I've only played the first game thus far, but the only thing resemling 'leet' I've seen in e-mails is Aura's jumbled attempts to communicate. And ok, sure, the fighting can get dull at times, but all RPGs have that problem. But the 'simulated MMORPG' idea is a nice twist to a normal RPG and the story has good details and it's intriguing.

They could have done a far better job making people seem more realistic in personality.

I've thus far only played MGS2 so it's what I'll comment on. I've had no troubles with the controls, zero, zip, zilch, nada, none, you get the point. I just don't get how you could have trouble with the controls...

That's your opinion, however I have, mostly movement glitches, and aiming/shooting issues. And no, it's not because I am not good at them, so that possible point is thrown out.

And how does 3D remove this element? I'll admit that a lot of RPGs now have full stories with full characters instead of trying to make YOU the character, sure, but I find myself identifying with them all the same. (Though, I will say with the case of Squall, it's because it really did feel like it was me, since our personalities are so much alike.)

Again, it all comes back to one of my previous statement: with more emphasis on visuals, the less there is to the imagination. Atleast in 2D, with less visuals, you could use your imagination. With the heavy use of 3D, you're imagination has to bend to what the developers wanted you to see. You should know that all too well Xyex, being a fanfiction author.

What? FMV's were the only way of progressing story in the majority of games for years. They were heavily used everywhere wether it be ingame cutscenes, lots of text, rendered fmv's or whatever. Its only now games are progressing the story naturally and interactively.

Cutscenes, and FMV's were in use late in the PlayStation 1's life, and heavily in the PS2. Many of the older 2D games didn't use them, it was all in-game automation.

[Aurek]

Well sure, I am not here to dispute 3D's abilities, merely the companies over use of the style, and under-use of judgement in the thought that maybe one of the games they produce, may be better told in 2D as opposed to 3D. And maybe, because of that, they can give players a bit of a change of pace.

Yeah like I said, it should be treated as just another style.

I used to want to develop games myself, back when I was 16. I am 20 now, and I've learned one thing over my travels of life: There are far too many developers as it is, and it's almost an impossible field to break into, unless you've got some raw, untapped talent for it, that a company might accidentally stumble across; like Cliff Bleszinski for instance.

I used to want to develop games, back when I was 16. I am 19 now, and I've learned one thing over my travels of life: There is nothing wrong with an aspiration. I have a goal, sue me Oh and I dont think there are too many developers. The number of development companies is shrinking as it becomes more and more expensive and difficult to compete.

Actually, 2D creation is far easier than 3D. With 3D sure you can create a model, but people spend countless hours designing the skins for them, for locations, for everything. This is a long and drawn out process that is much, much more difficult than 2D.

You're wrong. I have done both drawing in 2D and 3D modeling. 2D is far more time consuming and requires a wider skill set with a firm grounding in traditional art. Yes the same to could be said about creating textures for 3D models but there you are creating one set of images, once, not multiple times. Anyone who has dabbled in these things will support what I'm saying.

Cutscenes, and FMV's were in use late in the PlayStation 1's life, and heavily in the PS2. Many of the older 2D games didn't use them, it was all in-game automation.

Cutscenes and FMV's were in use long before the PS1 was even a twinkle in Sony's eye my friend.