Next generation consoles.

[Wafflewaffle]

Today we were presented to the last member of the next generation of consoles. We have now PS4, Xbox One and Wii U (fuck Wii U!). Now i know we, here in this forum are all PC gamers. We play nich Hardcore mods, we have a clearer understanding of how the internals of gaming works and we spend obscene amount of times siting in front of our monitors. Most importantly we dont need that motion sensor crap consoles are pushing through.

My question is what you guys think of this next generation "gaming"? Will you buy Xbox One, PS4 or Wii U (fuck Wii U!)? Or will you save your money for that new shiny video card?

[Sarudak]

Why the hate on the Wii U? I really liked the multiplayer games in nintendo land for the wii u.

[FlowerChild]

I'm actually both a console and PC gamer, or at least I was up until a few years ago. I had an obscene amount of 360 gamer points (something like 40-50K if I remember right), so I really played the shit out of the last gen. I've also worked in both PC and console game development (on a wide range of consoles from handheld on up), so I've seen both sides of the fence on all fronts.

Honestly, up until MC, I was under the impression that PC gaming was slowly dying, which is why I decided to refocus my professional efforts at a certain point to avoid going down with the ship. I started my career as a PC developer, but as sales continued to slump year after year I decided to get the fuck out of Dodge.

IMO, Indie game development is really the saving grace of the PC. I'm pretty sick of "AAA" style games now, so the PC suits me much better as both a gamer and developer. The one thing I *really* miss from the consoles though are music games, with Rock Band still being something that causes me to lose sleep at night (although my rig for that was far from standard with a full MIDI drum set hooked up to it).

Ok, with that preamble out of the way, I will say that I'm still a big proponent of motion capture devices. I've been playing around with them since the old eye toy on PS2, and got heavily into early Wii development when that came along.

The one *huge* advantage consoles have over the PC IMO is in offering a standardized platform for games, which includes the input devices. Thus, you can design specifically for that hardware, treating it as a known commodity. This means that consoles will have a much better chance of properly integrating these devices into play than say the PC will with stuff like that new VR helmet that's all the rage these days. Unless you know as a designer with certainty what kind of hardware the player has available, you really can't design to integrate it to its full potential into a game. In other words, you can't make gameplay actually *depend* on that hardware being present, which means it will always be loosely integrated into the experience at best.

So yeah man, all that to say that I'm very excited to see that trend continuing on consoles, and for these devices being integrated into the default configuration for the next gen. The Wii aside, which was really limited motion capture in practice, it's all been optional equipment for the last gen of consoles, which presents the same problems I mention above about the PC.

I have a "wait and see" attitude towards whether I'll purchase any of them myself, as I am much more focused on the PC these days for obvious reasons, but yes, I do find this rather exciting.

And yes...I've thought way too much about this stuff in the past ;)

[Bevanz]

I've pretty much always been a PC gamer. I've had Gameboys, DS, and a Super Nintendo, and I ended up with a broken 360 once. Suffice it to say that I, personally, won't be getting a console unless something amazing comes up about one of them.

[myrkana]

I will be getting a ps4 either when it comes out or within a year of that :) while I do like pc better for things like skyrim because you can mod them and make the games last longer, I like my console too xD I'm big into rpgs like final fantasy so I'd hate to miss out on them just because I didn't have the correct system >...>

[Wafflewaffle]

Why the hate on the Wii U? I really liked the multiplayer games in nintendo land for the wii u.

As a gamer i feel angry by the development and maintance of a mediocre glorified pedestal for Nintendo's first party games. Thats what the Wii U is. Its at least a two years old PC packet with a bunch of gimmecky controls for Nintendo to publish Mario and Zelda every 5 years. Dont get me wrong these are great games but they are not enough to justify a console and absolutly not enough to excuse a bad one. The Wii was the the first step towards motion control done right, the Wii U is a drunken stumble towards a facepalm.

Ok, with that preamble out of the way, I will say that I'm still a big proponent of motion capture devices. I've been playing around with them since the old eye toy on PS2, and got heavily into early Wii development when that came along.

I do like motion capture, but until i can see more advantages in moving my hands around then pressing a button i dont need it. Give me precision finger tracking instead of having to move my furniture around so the damn camera can see me moving my whole arm to do something simple like sliding a panel and im sold =P

[gftweek]

I have a PS3, but the only console type device I had before that was a commodore 64.

I see the living room as a social area, so a console there should be for social gaming. At least that was the plan when I got the PS3, but the majority of games are single-player or on-line multiplayer, which don't gel with me as they can be easily be played on a PC where you have a choice in control schemes, can easily mod them if desired, and mean you don't hog the living room!

I ordered an Ouya as it seems more geared towards dual player games and seems like it will be a halfway decent Media PC (not as good as an XBox, but I can't get any of the cable/internet tv channels in New Zealand anyway). These days I only use my PS3 as a Blue-Ray player.

[Katalliaan]

I'll still be putting what money I can into my rig or games for it. Why should I spend hundreds of dollars on something that's less powerful than what I already own that also is incompatible with my current library?

[FlowerChild]

Yup, I think motion capture and social gaming go hand in hand. You may not want to be dancing around your living room to control your character in a typical game, but throw that into a party setting and it's pure gold.

And again: games really need to be designed specifically for it. Tagging it on as an optional control scheme is setting it up for failure. As always, options suck ;)

[FlowerChild]

Why should I spend hundreds of dollars on something that's less powerful than what I already own that also is incompatible with my current library?

I do it for the design focus, and the resulting kinds of gameplay you can't get anywhere else.

Despite it just being the demo games that shipped with the console, Wii Sports is an example of exactly what I'm talking about. I've never experienced anything remotely similar to that on the PC or any other console.

So like I described above, having known hardware and being able to specifically design for it is where the consoles win hands down (also in preventing multiplayer cheating, but that's another story). It provides room for a particular kind of design innovation that you don't see on the PC due to the need to accommodate multiple hardware configurations in everything you do, thus resulting in a form of "lowest common denominator" design where you have to try and allow for all possible scenarios (similar to how I object to options within the mod). PC wins hand down in terms of versatility and the ease of developing and getting "published" on it, which is why it's a clear winner for the indie development scene.

Hence why I am so happy to see mo-cap being central to the next gen of consoles. Consoles win IMO when they work around specialized hardware that is made standard for people to design around.

[Gilberreke]

Most importantly we dont need that motion sensor crap consoles are pushing through.

I think I'll disagree here, very heavily in fact. That's the most interesting part of the new gen for me.

Here's some of the crazy innovative stuff that's being made and I can't wait for the next gen consoles to take a part in that:








That last one is a Virtuix Omni, an omni-directional treadmill to finally make that possible in gaming.

[Sage]

I've owned a lot of different consoles (GB,GBC, GBA, DS, NES, PS2, Wii) and I've really enjoyed every game I got on them :)

On the matter of new home consoles, I think that the PS4 is the winner. WiiU is great, and I'll get it for the probably awesome mario and zelda (and a good metroid, I hope), but they have sort of thrown away the wonderful wii controller for an home-ds, which doesn't really work to well :/ again, the old one is still supported, but it's more of a secondary option...and options are bad :P The new xBox on the other hand, seems the new apple-control-style monster, that will need to be constant online, and were you can only use a game once on a single console (bye bye used game, or borrowing games to friends).

On the subject of motion control, I really like them. I was a bit skeptic, for example, on the last Zelda, but after playing it has became one of my favorite...the immersion given by waving Link's sword directly is incredible, and worked as a charm.

[lostone1993]

I own a couple I might buy the new xbox assuming a few of series I like come out on it but it wont be till get them for $50 preowned

I think motion sensors are interesting but I also agree with Yahtzee that as long as motion sensors don't have physical feed back I can get immersed in them

[Shengji]

I've just got my hands on a Playstation for the first time - I've owned both XBoxes, a Wii, Game Cube, every piece of (commonly available) hardware Sega ever made and PC's, a Neo Geo, Amigas, MSX and I started my gaming and indeed my career on a Dragon 32 (Which makes me feel really old!). Also pretty much every common handheld except Sony's, though I now have a Vita.

I'm honestly excited by the next gen. I feel this gen went on a bit too long, but I think that will become the norm as hardware becomes more expensive. One thing that excites me is gaming as a service. Whoa, hold your ranting, I don't mean the EA use of the term, I'm looking at playstation plus - £40 a year and a bunch of games (to keep while your sub is paid) every month from indies to AAA's only a few months old. If Microsoft launches their own service then I think the way we buy games will change forever.

I also got a Vita and with Sony promising much greater integration, I am interested in how they will mesh the two and I am especially interested to see Sony pushing for indie games on their system.

It will be interesting to see how powerful the next gen consoles really are - something that is impossible to tell from the spec sheet alone, they do not compare to PC's for the reasons FC went into above. This will affect us all whether we use consoles or not. As much as I love custom hardware, and yes, I own a steel battalion controller and earn a few shekels making custom F1 steering wheels, I don't necessarily think the current crop - oculus rift, kinect, CastAR have an automatic pass - they need a killer game which sells them, look at what wii sports did for the wiimote. The sony wonderbook looks interesting too, I may buy one for my son.

So to answer the question, I feel the next gen will have a good chance at getting quality games to the consumer cheaply either because indies will get prominence or because games will be available for a low annual cost and I genuinely believe this will change the games industry for the better. Also never underestimate Nintendo and their understanding of how to make great games!!!

[FlowerChild]

Just as an aside about the cheating thing I briefly mentioned above, I wanted to say this:

Despite *vastly* preferring mouse/keyboard as an FPS control scheme, I also vastly prefer playing multiplayer FPS games on the console.

Why is that? Because I know with a fair degree of certainty that I'm on a level playing field and that if stuff like smoke is present on the battlefield, the other players are unlikely to be able to see through it. I'm also fairly certain they don't have their field of view set so wide as to allow them to see behind them.

This makes stuff like popping smoke grenades tactically and sneaking up on people viable elements of *gameplay*, and again, without that certainty, as a designer you can't really integrate stuff like that into the play experience.

This extends even further with stuff like standardized voice communications where you can theoretically design stuff like transmission range into the game without knowing that people will just use Skype if you do that.

Anyways, just to reemphasize: don't dismiss the strength of standardized hardware when it comes to game design. Even without specialized motion capture devices and the like, just having a firm knowledge of what the player is actually playing on is a huge boon when it comes to design. Even stuff as seemingly insignificant as having standardized button layouts on a controller can have a huge impact on how "tight" your game winds up feeling in the end.

I suspect most people don't get this though, just as they don't get my stance as a designer on game options and inter-mod compatibility. At a surface level "more options" just seems like an automatic win, but with time as a serious designer, you slowly begin to realize just how much they cripple your abilities to create a focused play experience.

Obviously, I'm a huge proponent of *in-game* options, interactivity (I still hate cut-scenes which are about as non-optional a moment as you get in games), and emergent gameplay. However, where I think that falls apart is when it is applied to the meta-game, and there I view too many options as being in direct opposition to good design.

[Gilberreke]

We were actually discussing on another forum a while back, that we should make a game where cheating is actually the real game-play.

Joking aside, I've never had a problem with cheating. I just don't play video games in a competitive way. Immersion is what I seek in games and the moment I realize there's a human being sitting at the other end of the line, that immersion is gone. On top of that, most competitive game-play requires knowledge about a game that completely demystifies it. I still like that first time I jumped into Minecraft best. That first night was magical, because I didn't know what the hell I was doing. Immersion into this strange world was everything.

That's why I like all the motion/VR stuff. Involving more senses into games sounds wonderful. I want people to make a game that you can smell and touch. THAT will be my day. That's also the reason why I like board games so much, there's a lot more going on in terms of senses and the people I'm playing with are actually there. On top of that, they bring me a bottle of wine when they do.

[FlowerChild]

That's also the reason why I like board games so much, there's a lot more going on in terms of senses and the people I'm playing with are actually there. On top of that, they bring me a bottle of wine when they do.

It might be worth considering that board-games are also some of the most non-optional play experiences that you are likely to find, and thus the good ones possess a tightness of design rarely found in video games. These are the pieces, this is the board, and as a designer you know precisely what you're dealing with and don't need to account for something as ludicrous as the players completely redefining the shape of the board or downloading additional pieces made by a third party.

"Cheating" is one thing, as you don't need to really consider that as a designer (outside of designing for multiplayer in which case it takes a huge degree of prominence in that features you design which can easily be cheated around like the smoke thing I mentioned above just wind up punishing legit players). However, in making something optional you are giving your consent that the game is supposed to work either way and is designed for it. If there is an option, then players will make their own decisions as to what they think constitutes the best play experience based on whatever limited information they have available, and can very well ruin the entire thing in the process. Best case you wind up running in circles trying to design for completely different circumstances simultaneously, and as a result wind up severely limited in how much you can focus your design.

A good example of the above is Hardcore Info. How many of the other features that I've released since would be completely irrelevant if I hadn't turned off the player's GPS? Heck, throw gameplay elements as strong as hardcore spawn right out the window, as I'd have no motivation to create a system that can be bypassed as easily as a button press.

Anyways, hopefully you can understand what I'm saying in that meta-game options can actually wind up limiting the in-game ones in that they can quickly turn them irrelevant.

[Gilberreke]

Anyways, hopefully you can understand what I'm saying in that meta-game options can actually wind up limiting the in-game ones in that they can quickly turn them irrelevant.

Oh yes, I understand exactly what you mean. My point was more that that doesn't affect me personally, because as an immersion-oriented player, I usually don't grab for the meta-game options. For example, in Skyrim I will refuse to use my best sword, because the color doesn't fit my outfit.

I understand perfectly how it affects other gamers though, and in the end, that means they lessen their play experience. I think I, as a designer, would care less about it than you do, but on the other hand, I've never had to make money doing so. I can make a game and not even release it (which I've done in the past) and be perfectly content. I do "get" and understand the sentiment though and I also think that the fact you care so much about those things comes across in your design, which is a huge bonus.

Your comments about board games sum up some of the advantages. I would care less about players altering the game though, and see it more as a bonus that the designer can actually shape the way the player's table looks. It's kinda similar to arcade games, where you get full control over the hardware as well as the game.

[TheGatesofLogic]

Ever heard of a quantum gyroscope?
My "physics buddies" and I took apart the old wii and connected it to a type of "super refrigerator (obviously a technical term)" and, using some pretty large insulation units, added a small super-fluid gyroscope and a a small super conducting magnetic disturbance detector. (The detector and gyroscope were required to be in the console, rather than the "controller", which I also haven't mentioned yet ;), because then our hands would freeze :( )
For the controller we attached neodymium-magnet nodes to a belt and several other important "key locations" on the human body. At this point we remembered that the wii would not be able to handle the inputs and we redesigned the entire wii from the inside out and got one of our "coder monkeys" to do the glorified typing work for us. What resulted was the fastest and most reliable motion detecting device ever built! (I think) That is, until the system overheated and broke the detecting components. God I wish we had room-temperature "super-stuff", because I had the most epic time playing on it for all of the 10 minutes it worked for...
Funny thing, our original intention had nothing to do with a wii... We just got carried away when my friend brought one to the lab.
On a side note, the coding part took more time than building the damn thing. And the damn thing cost more than all of us make in a month combined. Luckily nothing actually physically broke, it just no longer worked and we scrapped the parts

[FlowerChild]

Yeah, that's the thing. Having done this professionally, I've grown to care a great deal about other people's experiences with my games, including what they may do to inadvertently ruin them.

I think this is rather common amongst professional designers, otherwise stuff like "cheat codes" wouldn't be hidden away in most games, they'd just be directly accessible from the options menu.

IMO, there's a certain contract between designer and player for the designer to define the overall "standard" play experience and to make it very clear to the player when they are going outside of it. What they do beyond your control is exactly that, but the more you can do to restrict that (or at the very least make it inconvenient) the more focused your design can become due to increased confidence in the play parameters. It's basically your job to define what the fun is in the game, and part of that is to make sure that as many people as possible play it as intended, and thus have the most fun.

I'm extremely anal about not breaking my own play experience either, so I get what you're saying there. Thus, what I do in that regard is almost always for the benefit of others rather than myself. Given that, it's somewhat ironic that I also take so much hate over it, but thems the breaks :)

It's kinda similar to arcade games, where you get full control over the hardware as well as the game.

Yup, precisely. That's about as tighly a defined play experience as you can ask for. However, you wind up with other unfortunate meta-game problems in designing arcade games though, like having to design around how many quarters per hour you'll consume (almost like how consumer appliances are designed to break down to sell more units over time), rather than being able to focus exclusively on player enjoyment. Often times this will act in direct opposition to designing for depth, and it turns more into designing for flash and instant gratification. I've never really had any interest in designing arcade games for that reason.

[Wafflewaffle]

Spoiler

Show

Most importantly we dont need that motion sensor crap consoles are pushing through.

I think I'll disagree here, very heavily in fact. That's the most interesting part of the new gen for me.

Here's some of the crazy innovative stuff that's being made and I can't wait for the next gen consoles to take a part in that:








That last one is a Virtuix Omni, an omni-directional treadmill to finally make that possible in gaming.

I understand the hype, i get how many amazing experiences we may have if any of those actually works how its intended to, but we dont "need" it. My greatest fear is that the comercially gimmicky software will water down any of those great experiences. If hardware starts pushing software foward thats exactly what will happen. Then motion control becomes the new 3D.

We dont "need" it becouse he have yet much to grow as we are now.

[FlowerChild]

We don't "need" video games at all man. Not really a valid argument in a discussion about them then.

Do these kinds of things provide new and innovative ways to experience games and thus provide never before seen video game experiences? I'm confident they will. The last gen really was the "experimental" one as far as mo-cap went. I'm pretty confident that if the big console manufacturers are now making that hardware the default, it's come a very long way.

[Gilberreke]

Yup, precisely. That's about as tighly a defined play experience as you can ask for. However, you wind up with other unfortunate meta-game problems in designing arcade games though, like having to design around how many quarters per hour you'll consume (almost like how consumer appliances are designed to break down to sell more units over time), rather than being able to focus exclusively on player enjoyment. Often times this will act in direct opposition to designing for depth, and it turns more into designing for flash and instant gratification. I've never really had any interest in designing arcade games for that reason.

Yeah, I agree with your post. And yes, you are certainly right about the arcade business model being counter to what a good game should be, except for certain genres (fighting games for example, really shine on arcade). My girlfriend and I are thinking about making board games, which is why this comes up I guess.

I'm thinking that they allow you to really tailor the experience, they are tactile (I love making tactile stuff as an artist) and they allow you to playtest the thing over a bottle of wine, with some friends.

I understand the hype, i get how many amazing experiences we may have if any of those actually works how its intended to, but we dont "need" it. My greatest fear is that the comercially gimmicky software will water down any of those great experiences. If hardware starts pushing software foward thats exactly what will happen. Then motion control becomes the new 3D.

We dont "need" it becouse he have yet much to grow as we are now.

We don't need video games and we've been in a graphics arms-race for over a decade. If anything, we need this motion stuff a lot more than anything else. The Wii has done more to gaming than the PS3 and Xbox combined in that regard. I love that they're focusing on toys that increase the fun as opposed to features that do nothing to heighten the fun level, but only increase the wow level (which is important too, but not as much imo).

[FlowerChild]

I love making tactile stuff as an artist

Hehe...I get the impression that may not be specific to artists, but may be a common attribute of people that spend a lot of times with games in general.

I know I live in my own head so much, that I even enjoy doing the dishes by hand sometimes for Pete's sake :)

[Gilberreke]

Hehe...I get the impression that may not be specific to artists, but may be a common attribute of people that spend a lot of times with games in general.

I know I live in my own head so much, that I even enjoy doing the dishes by hand sometimes for Pete's sake :)

Odd, I love stuff like that too, don't even own a dishwasher. I really miss that aspect in video games. I miss games that come with cloth maps and laminated cheat sheets with unit stats, precisely for that reason. The feel of moving a wooden chess piece on my glass board is way more gratifying than when I play chess online and just click the pieces.

I guess that's why I love input devices. I love novel ways of playing the same old. I ordered a joystick for playing FPS games, just to test out how that would work (I'm talking joystick + mouse combo). I even love input devices in Minecraft, that's why I bugged you about making the buddy block support the hand crank way back when it came out.

I think dice are especially powerful in that way. In a lot of cases, dice aren't even necessary, but board game designers abuse them, just because it's just so damn fun to throw a dice and have that one second where you don't know what it'll will say and hear the clicky clacky sound as it hits the table and rolls.