New XBox 360 screens?

[Kosmo]

Flop by my definition means to fail commercially, and whether the new consoles live up to their promises or not they aren't going to do so.

And you think that not delivering what they promise won't affect on sales? Something that did or did not happen to Fable maybe?

Promise more than you can give will affect sales, that is the beauty of marketting, they can lie to customers so that they can grab sufficient amount of first day sales before the word of failure is out. I have still some Xbox tag lines running around my head, especially the same kind of promises are made this time around, like the whole number hype when xBOB was coming out, just put a number that can be divided by 8 and you got a marketting scheme, 256 this and 128 that 512 of those and only 64 on these.

I might be something of a Nintendophile but I like their way, they are promising a completely new interface, to revolutionize gaming (I know it is a load of bull), they did something to back that up with DS with some shortcomings but still it was something completely new. Nintendo has their share of empty promises, but I'm very suprised that they have not jumped the "livingroom multimedia center" -bullshit they know that it is a big market, Sony and MS are using it as a stepping stone and they really are riding that half dead horse like no tomorrow, new multimedia capabilities this and better image that, I have no respect for them.

Sony and MS are clearly exploiting anything and eveything at their disposal and do you think it will stop after they got their console out? Now way, you can bet your ass they will get something together to grab more money like the rumored xBOB HDD upgrade and internet capabilities with Microsofts terms, Sony game us some first hand taste of "fuck up the ass" -soup with their PSP and trallallaa media formats and their decision to go with Blu-ray discs even without DVDForums approval to the form. They are fucking up the whole industry and people just smile and give them their money to fuck it up some more, what is this?

[DelaZ]

lol i smell some frustration here

[marque_pierre]

They are fucking up the whole industry and people just smile and give them their money to fuck it up some more, what is this?

Well, don't! I never gave them any money, for that very reason. Vote with your feet. Money talks, bullshit walks...

[ReNo]

I think it is quite nice to see Nintendo going alternative routes in console development rather than just pushing power, but to me its the PSP that looks much more tempting, and the Xbox 360 that will most likely be getting my money. All this "revolutionising" gaming is, as you say, for the most part bullshit. Touch screen is cool... for a little while. Game cartridges that have sunlight sensors to build up "charge" for use in games - novel, but hardly a revolution. Gaming has been using controllers for a good while now and I'm happy to continue doing so - its tried, tested, and it works.

Of course if you want to mention alternative control methods / gaming methods offered by Nintendo, its only fair you at least recognise they aren't the only ones going in this direction. Sony made a hugely successful step into novel control methods with their EyeToy after all.

From what I've heard of the Xbox 360, it sounds perfectly feasible. Saying "gaming will never be the same" or whatever their little advert things claim is obviously a load of crap but its advertising, and everything does it. Perhaps I've not heard some MS publicity on the console that you have, so if you point me toward any claims they have made that are particularly outrageous or unfeasible, then please point me to them. I'm not a blind supporter of MS or anything of the sort, I just happen to have been thoroughly impressed by their last console and so obviously I'm quite likely to buy their follow up.

Oh and apparently Fable was the fastest selling Xbox game in the US until Halo 2 made its appearance, so its not like failing to live up to its hype had as much of a negative impact on the game's commercial success as you suggest.

[DelaZ]

OMG HUGE IMAGE -

sorry for the huge image

Edited - Mojo: I changed this to a link since it was breaking tables and I had to scroll way the hell over to read posts.

[Tequila]

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000200042615/

Close-up controller shot.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000490042605/

Console, headset, controller and camera.

http://www.engadget.com/entry/1234000040042613/

Remote control.

[DelaZ]

http://www.mapcore.net/forums/viewtopic ... c&start=60

[Tequila]

http://www.mapcore.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=2399&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=60

Ah sorry, Dela, those images didn't load for me before.

[Izuno]

wow....it's just so funny to hear the "OMG MSFT IS THE EVIL EMPRIRE" logic. It's a god damn gaming console. Why do you feel so threatened? And remember, the Xbox was MSFTs first attempt at one. No on thought they would do well because their first iteration of any new technology (as I said earlier in this thread and many many other other people have observed long before me) that MSFT's first iteration of anything tends to suck royal ass. Personally I really like the Xbox. What I've seen of the 360 makes me think it will be a much better total product.

So I'll try to make a point: I really am glad I purchased an Xbox. I like the S-controller, and I really liked many of the games on it and would buy a game for Xbox before I would fot PS2 9 times out of 10. I think MSFT has put a huge amount of time and money in making the 360 a better system to game on....ie...the total ownership experience of the 360 should be better than the Xbox. I really like the notion of being able to purchase cheap addon content. Maybe I am biased because I work in the industry and 99% of the games I own I get for free somehow. I think they are going to hype the crap out of it, which is a bit irritating. Next week on MTV look for DJ Frodo Baggins to host the launch show the Monday before E3 (it was already taped in Los Angeles last week). Take a look at the games...judge for yourself.

Bah...it's morning before work and I'm rambling. Anyway....for the haters out there, I hear your hate and pain. It's cool. But I really think that the 360 will get more praise than criticism from most console gamers.

Um....yeah need to put more braincells into this thought....

[jfas]

Anyway....for the haters out there, I hear your hate and pain.

But hate the playa not the game

[Kosmo]

Ugh, yeah, well what ever.

But like I said earlier, there isn't exactly nothing wrong with the consoles, and not especially the games, the game developers are completely different entity , it's the "EVIL EMPRIRE" that is the spike in my side. And it's not even just Microsoft that is the evil empire, over the years, it has become Sony in to that position with their majority marketshare and wacky decisions to go their own way just to try to drop the competition.

But let's play a little game, I can spot that this communitys name is MAPcore, so how many of you have made maps for console games? Aside from very limited Pariah style map editing where you have very limited control over what you can actually do. My beef is that now that PC games success is measured by the size of the modding community and it increases longevity (longevity = more 'bang' for your buck), console games have become shorter and shorter over the years (yes I realise that this one is on the game developers and not the console developers side). While developing games becomes more expensive, I'm not seeing that console games drop in prices, on the contrary, publishers like EA could easily crank the prices up.

But the funny thing is that I'm not seeing this to change in a million years, as long as consumers act as sheeps, the console makers and console game developers can do what ever they want, and then the consumers say "why these games are short and suck so much" and then rush to the stores to buy the next even shorter game with higher price tag.

But what the hell, it's all good as long as people are happy :roll:

[Izuno]

Kosmo, you make some good points. To expand, the cost of making video game content, for PC or for console, is ever increasing. As hardware gets more powerful and complex, it takes more people and more time to develop higher end product worthy of the new hardware capabilities. Combine that with the marketing to get mass market attention, you have a serious problem of escalating costs with riskier potential for returns. But this is a known problem that many pundits, wags and industry people have been forecasting for a while...even a topic of mapcore threads.

So what might alleviate this problem of "EA-izing" of gaming:

1) Better tools. Yes, it is costly to make a more effecient and powerful level design solution (or other tools) but it sure would help. Imagine if a more powerful tool could cut the time it takes to animate a complex character and make it higher quality? And was easier to learn? That would certainly save developers a lot of headaches.

2) Better Q/A management. Q/A is very complex now, and having an effective, efficient Q/A department can help developers increase quality while decreasing development cycles by catching and documenting bugs earlier and faster. Trust me, I've seen many a game gaffed because producers and Q/A managers didn't communicate well.

3) Consolidation. Sorry to say it, but little publishers/developers simply won't be able to compete on cost. EA is sort of driving this, but it is innevitable. (spell check? what?) EA is centralizing shared resources for mo-cap, CG animation, sound recording, musical scoring and technology developoment. While there are many EA games we here at mapcore do not like, EA games certainly have mass market appeal as they sell sell sell. They are able to crank out mass market content cheaper and faster than the other publishers. Sure, they work the shit out of their employees (if the EA_spouce and other stories are really true) but because of their scale, they can do more with with less money than other publishers can. If you are another publisher, you've got to make similar consolidation moves just to compete on cost.

Now....on a slightly different tanget, and perhaps a bit back on topic, is the industry really in that bad of a place? Since last summer here are the highlights of the games I've played (and which platforms I played them on) and my personal opinion about them:

Half Life 2 on PC not as good as the first relative to its time, but I loved it.

Mercenaries on Xbox and PS2 So far this is my console game of the year for 2005. Despite the bugs and the texture / fogging issues, I friggin loved this game and played it twice through. Still play it a little each week.

Resident Evil 4 on GameCube I bought this for my cousin when he moved to LA. One of the best horror games ever...and I don't play horror games. It rocked.

Brothers in Arms on PC/Xbox It really did innovate and I applaud Gearbox and Ubisoft. I admit there were things that weren't to my liking, but overall it delivered a new kind of shooting game that evolved the "puzzle" type strategy first seen in Full Spectrum Warrior.

Prince of Persia: Warrior Within on Xbox it is more of an upgrade from Sands of Time, but man am I enjoying it. I just got a oopy last week and am really hooked. Another one for Ubi.

Splinter Cell 3 on Xbox/PC Again, way to go Ubi for having the 2nd game exceed the first and the 3rd exceed the second. Hats off. Ubi=publisher of the year imo.

So despite the crappiness of late, there is some hope that good games are still coming out. Maybe it's not a world of gaming goodness, but I can't say I've gone a while without a game I've been psyched to play.

[FrieChamp]

Sums it up pretty well, thanks for the read izuno

[Kosmo]

Izuno you speak powerful words indeed.

I have had time to think some things out since I have never loved anything as much as I love game industry, don't take me wrong, I'm pretty much self educated when it comes to game development, but schools are having pretty hard time keeping up with the pace

One problem I see with game development is that compared to other industries like movie industry is that if movie industry worked the same way game industry does, many many movies would have not been done, in movie industry there are alot of individuals that are hired for projects because they are suited well to the task like a director who has done several adventure movies or war movies can do hell of a better job than someone who has done comedies, well in some cases atleast. In game development, you have your core team with the key players already hired like game designers and lead artists and lead programmers, only extra hands are brough in to work with projects too big for the inhouse staff to handle.

Second thing, in movie industry there are alot of smaller companies that are specialized to certain thing and do that faster, easier, cheaper and have their own developed tools for the task (answer to question number one I guess) without costing extra to a game developer, I mean what develper would make Unread Edit style tool if they are making one FPS and then going back to RTS games?

Now music business is somewhat similar to game development in terms of team, the same musicans make a record and record company produces and publishes it (in majority of the cases) this works if they made same games with similar content all the time, so no need to hire extra developers rise, but then again, they wouldn't be succesful with that.

Now what this all adds up, is we need more companies specialized to certain areas of game development and those individuals (designers seem to be these individuals these days, look at American McGee) and cinematics are usually made outside. But think of this, we have a designer making a game design, now he could be part of a developer or independent, after he finishes the design (demo part is still bit tricky since these days no publisher is going to lift a finger without a demo) they continue to bring in other companies specialised to certain areas of game development such as graphics, AI, dynamic content, cinematic and what not. Think about how much it would speed up the process and make things cheaper if a developer wouldn't need to hire 20 artists to do those high polygon props and normal maps, instead they hire a outside studio to do that, and they just might have the tools and expertice to do it even better than you could do it.

What I'm saying here is that game development as it is has prettymuch come to an end, we are still using some stone age development cycles and patterns that are not cost effective, these "methods" to do games are invented back when first games were made. The industry needs to move on, but instead we are just running in circles and wondering why we see our own tracks.

[ReNo]

I don't really get this "games are getting shorter" statement that people always seem to come back to. I recall that most games of the 16-bit era (including the Amiga 500 or greater) such as Streets of Rage, Sonic the Hedgehog, Golden Axe, Another World and so on could be completed in a few hours or play.

If we move onto the 32-bit era I'd say games got a bit of a boost in length, with games like Metal Gear Solid, Resident Evil 1/2/3, Mario 64, Tomb Raider 1/2/3, etc... normally taking the best part of a day of solid gaming to complete, and others like FFVII/VIII/IX, Front Mission, Grandia, etc... taking at least 20 hours or more.

The current era seems at least on par, and in many cases exceeds the previous one. Resident Evil:CV and the even longer Resident Evil 4 are both longer than their 32-bit counterparts, and in the case of ResEvil 4 this is managed while at the same time reducing the amount of time you are stuck in the same environments. New FF games are still lengthy and seem to offer more side quests and replayability than before (even if they can't quite match some of the previous games in terms of story/characters). Without having played it, Zelda:WW seemed to be plenty long enough and have lots of periphery things to do when I watched my flatmate go through it. Shadow Hearts 1/2, KOTOR, Grandia 2 - all relatively modern RPG's with plenty of content. And show me an old racing game with anything like the amount of content/replayability as Gran Turismo 4, Forza, or Burnout 3. Completing any of those in a day would be one hell of a feat, whereas with Lotus Turbo Challenge, Outrun, Ridge Racer, Road Rash (well, some of its sequels are quite long) and other less modern efforts its to be expected.

Games like Republic Commando, Halo 2, Fable, Beyond Good and Evil, and so on have recieved bad press for being short, and while those comments have merit (eg. with BG&E the game seemed to have the scope to be far longer), are they REALLY that short as they are claimed to be? Isn't 10 hours still significantly more than the vast majority of 16 bit games took?