No new Playstation, XBox until 2014?

Seems about right. The Wii HD will be the first of the "next-gen" consoles to be out, therefore dominating the console system market once again. Can't say much on their games and the direction they'll be taking but I think we can expect Mario to make a return? :PElann2008

Also I don't think there might actually be an "HD" screen on the controler. Wouldn't that jack up the price of the system? Doesn't seem like nintendo would want to do that. They know where there money is at, and making an expensive system tis not going to bring the ammount of cash they want.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Crysis 2's framerate is bad by most accounts, but almost nobody bought it, so it doesn't make sense to claim that people routinely accept such a framerate. While 60 is nice, personally I've always been comfortable with 30 fps (it looks smooth to me).

As for resolution,I just don't think people care. You see people online 'OMG Da Fuzz is killing mah eyes! but honestly, Halo Reach looks fine to me. Many more people care about what is onscreen, how much of it there is and what it is doing than they do about where a not a game is 720p or 640p. The game which reveals how 'weak' current gen consoles are will be a game which offers an experience current gen consoles can't match, not just shinier textures.

S0lidSnake

I am also more than happy with a solid, consistent 30 fps. And I think Reach looks gorgeous. So does MGS4 which runs at sub HD resolution.

The point i am trying to make here, and clearly failing at it :P, is that when Nintendo comes out with a powerful new console in 2012... with a high end GPU from 2008 at the very least, it will blow away everything made for current gen consoles, and it will do it with a gimmick. Nintendo will also not launch this for more than $300, and that will make it really easy for people to pick this over a last gen console for $200 or whatever PS3 and 360 would be retailing for in 2012.

Regardless, it will boil down to whether or not MS and Sony decide to give Nintendo a 2 year head start. Even if they come out with hardware more powerful than Nintendo in 2014, Nintendo wouldve built up a sizeable market among the casuals and more importantly the core, and we simply wouldn't see most developers making full use of the next Xbox or PS4. We saw this last gen with the PS2, we see it now with all the PC gamers complaining about having to play corridor shooters and we will see it next gen 2014-2019 when PS4 and XBox 720 games will just be shinier versions of a console built on a 2008 GPU. Not sure anyone wants that.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

If you think that TF2 is easily stacks up to any current gen games in terms of visuals, you've been playing the wrong current gen games (which isn't to say that it isn't a great game).

locknload17

I wasn't talking about graphics features as in textures, light maps, shaders, and all the other tech jargon that too many people get hung up about, many times without knowing what it all means.

I was talking about visuals...as in how visually pleasing and stylistic a game is...and the frankly, Team Fortress 2 and the use of the engine in that game in delivering it's stylistic look does indeed stack up well against how current gen games look.

I rather look at a games like Team Fortess 2 and Okami for hours over of some some of the UE3 games that seem to lack color and aesthetic, and which also look more long in the tooth now in comparison to the far more stylistic TF2 running on an updated version of an engine which made it's debut in '04.

Visuals like this look perfectly fine to me:

...and overall match up with a majority of the games that have been put out this gen in terms of visuals.

I don't think anyone can claim that Team Fortress 2 or Okami or Limbo look "ugly" or "underwhelming" visually....but there are plenty of games on higher-end engines that can be described as such.

That isn't gameplay. That looks like something from one of the TF2 promo videos. For an example of headshots in gameplay, check out the link below (the head doesn't fly apart).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y3NnN1iCQ4g&feature=related

Carnage, the Team Fortress 2 Meet the _____ vids are made using the game engine with slightly more detailed character models. Much like the touched up Uncharted pre-rendered scenes. The animation looks great because of motion capture done just for those vids.

That said I agree that headshot is not ingame.

I mean, you could try to point to the gap between the Dreamcast and Xbox as comparable, but the graphical jump has already been far less noticeable from the GC/Xbox/PS2 generation to the 360/PS3 generation than any prior generational jump... And PC gaming hasn't run completely away from console gaming in terms of graphical prowess, despite being five years into this generation, have yet to completely run away from what consoles are doing like they have in the past. I don't know if they're going to be a huge visible gap between a technologically progressive console from 2012 and one from 2014. Maybe there will be, but I'm not convinced yet.Oilers99

Exagerrate much? I think the leap from the previous generation has been spectacularly massive so far, especially with some of the newer games out there. You're probably just looking at the worst examples from this generation and comparing those against the best ones from the previous generation. FF12 looks like a pixellated mess when compared to FF13, which looks much crisper and almost as good as the CG found in the previous games. God of War 3 makes God Of War 2 look ancient by comparison. Even new IPs like Batman:AA and Metro 2033 truly demonstrate just how far the PS3/360 has come compared to the first-gen titles.

I just got a ps3, so hopefully 2015

[QUOTE="Oilers99"] I mean, you could try to point to the gap between the Dreamcast and Xbox as comparable, but the graphical jump has already been far less noticeable from the GC/Xbox/PS2 generation to the 360/PS3 generation than any prior generational jump... And PC gaming hasn't run completely away from console gaming in terms of graphical prowess, despite being five years into this generation, have yet to completely run away from what consoles are doing like they have in the past. I don't know if they're going to be a huge visible gap between a technologically progressive console from 2012 and one from 2014. Maybe there will be, but I'm not convinced yet.BladesOfAthena

Exagerrate much? I think the leap from the previous generation has been spectacularly massive so far, especially with some of the newer games out there. You're probably just looking at the worst examples from this generation and comparing those against the best ones from the previous generation. FF12 looks like a pixellated mess when compared to FF13, which looks much crisper and almost as good as the CG found in the previous games. God of War 3 makes God Of War 2 look ancient by comparison. Even new IPs like Batman:AA and Metro 2033 truly demonstrate just how far the PS3/360 has come compared to the first-gen titles.

I agree with this. Yes, first gen games like PD0 and Resistance didn't look all that great, but GoW3 to GoW2 was more than just a noticeable jump.

Plus you cant argue with the fact that games like Assassin's Creed would've been possible on the last gen consoles. The PSP version of Assassin's Creed barely has any crowd.

I am more interested in how the next gen consoles would improve gameplay. I remember watching Heavenly Sword tech demos where they could spawn hundreds on enemies, yet apart from the Halo and Assassin's Creed games, no game this gen has managed that kind of scale. Even Halo and AC games dont have you fighting more than a dozen enemies at once. I love ME and Uncharted games, but I want something on a bigger scale where you control entire armies instead of two other people in your squad.

Anyway, here is Kratos in God of War 2.

This is Kratos in God of War 3

Anyway, here is Kratos in God of War 2.

This is Kratos in God of War 3

S0lidSnake

What we he look like in 4?

That isn't gameplay. That looks like something from one of the TF2 promo videos. For an example of headshots in gameplay, check out the link below (the head doesn't fly apart).

CarnageHeart

No, it's not, but as was said...the "Meet the Team" videos were created with the same engine the game runs on, with the only difference being a slight enhancement to the character models and the use of motion capture for animations since it's a scripted promo video.

Aside from that, for all intents in purposes...the actually look of the game is pretty much as shown in that video, in fact, the video you posted pretty much shows this...again, which goes back to my point. Those visuals stack up well in comparison to numerous games released this gen.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

That isn't gameplay. That looks like something from one of the TF2 promo videos. For an example of headshots in gameplay, check out the link below (the head doesn't fly apart).

locknload17

No, it's not, but as was said...the "Meet the Team" videos were created with the same engine the game runs on, with the only difference being a slight enhancement to the character models and the use of motion capture for animations since it's a scripted promo video.

Aside from that, for all intents in purposes...the actually look of the game is pretty much as shown in that video, in fact, the video you posted pretty much shows this...again, which goes back to my point. Those visuals stack up well in comparison to numerous games released this gen.

No it doesn't. Plenty of titles like God Of War 3 and Uncharted 2 completely blow TF2 out of the water. The only reason why you think TF2 is comparable visually is because you find the art****more appealing. If we're gonna argue based on artistic merit alone, then I can just as easily say that Donkey Kong Country looks just as good as Okami. :P

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

[QUOTE="Oilers99"] I mean, you could try to point to the gap between the Dreamcast and Xbox as comparable, but the graphical jump has already been far less noticeable from the GC/Xbox/PS2 generation to the 360/PS3 generation than any prior generational jump... And PC gaming hasn't run completely away from console gaming in terms of graphical prowess, despite being five years into this generation, have yet to completely run away from what consoles are doing like they have in the past. I don't know if they're going to be a huge visible gap between a technologically progressive console from 2012 and one from 2014. Maybe there will be, but I'm not convinced yet.S0lidSnake

Exagerrate much? I think the leap from the previous generation has been spectacularly massive so far, especially with some of the newer games out there. You're probably just looking at the worst examples from this generation and comparing those against the best ones from the previous generation. FF12 looks like a pixellated mess when compared to FF13, which looks much crisper and almost as good as the CG found in the previous games. God of War 3 makes God Of War 2 look ancient by comparison. Even new IPs like Batman:AA and Metro 2033 truly demonstrate just how far the PS3/360 has come compared to the first-gen titles.

I agree with this. Yes, first gen games like PD0 and Resistance didn't look all that great, but GoW3 to GoW2 was more than just a noticeable jump.

Plus you cant argue with the fact that games like Assassin's Creed would've been possible on the last gen consoles. The PSP version of Assassin's Creed barely has any crowd.

I am more interested in how the next gen consoles would improve gameplay. I remember watching Heavenly Sword tech demos where they could spawn hundreds on enemies, yet apart from the Halo and Assassin's Creed games, no game this gen has managed that kind of scale. Even Halo and AC games dont have you fighting more than a dozen enemies at once. I love ME and Uncharted games, but I want something on a bigger scale where you control entire armies instead of two other people in your squad.

Anyway, here is Kratos in God of War 2.

This is Kratos in God of War 3

I don't think I've ever seen pores that look THIS good in God Of War 2. Even when Wii2 comes out, God Of War 3 is still going to stomp over all the launch titles that come with it. :P

[QUOTE="Oilers99"] I mean, you could try to point to the gap between the Dreamcast and Xbox as comparable, but the graphical jump has already been far less noticeable from the GC/Xbox/PS2 generation to the 360/PS3 generation than any prior generational jump... And PC gaming hasn't run completely away from console gaming in terms of graphical prowess, despite being five years into this generation, have yet to completely run away from what consoles are doing like they have in the past. I don't know if they're going to be a huge visible gap between a technologically progressive console from 2012 and one from 2014. Maybe there will be, but I'm not convinced yet.BladesOfAthena

Exagerrate much? I think the leap from the previous generation has been spectacularly massive so far, especially with some of the newer games out there. You're probably just looking at the worst examples from this generation and comparing those against the best ones from the previous generation. FF12 looks like a pixellated mess when compared to FF13, which looks much crisper and almost as good as the CG found in the previous games. God of War 3 makes God Of War 2 look ancient by comparison. Even new IPs like Batman:AA and Metro 2033 truly demonstrate just how far the PS3/360 has come compared to the first-gen titles.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

Crysis 2's framerate is bad by most accounts, but almost nobody bought it, so it doesn't make sense to claim that people routinely accept such a framerate. While 60 is nice, personally I've always been comfortable with 30 fps (it looks smooth to me).

As for resolution,I just don't think people care. You see people online 'OMG Da Fuzz is killing mah eyes! but honestly, Halo Reach looks fine to me. Many more people care about what is onscreen, how much of it there is and what it is doing than they do about where a not a game is 720p or 640p. The game which reveals how 'weak' current gen consoles are will be a game which offers an experience current gen consoles can't match, not just shinier textures.

S0lidSnake

I am also more than happy with a solid, consistent 30 fps. And I think Reach looks gorgeous. So does MGS4 which runs at sub HD resolution.

The point i am trying to make here, and clearly failing at it :P, is that when Nintendo comes out with a powerful new console in 2012... with a high end GPU from 2008 at the very least, it will blow away everything made for current gen consoles, and it will do it with a gimmick. Nintendo will also not launch this for more than $300, and that will make it really easy for people to pick this over a last gen console for $200 or whatever PS3 and 360 would be retailing for in 2012.

Regardless, it will boil down to whether or not MS and Sony decide to give Nintendo a 2 year head start. Even if they come out with hardware more powerful than Nintendo in 2014, Nintendo wouldve built up a sizeable market among the casuals and more importantly the core, and we simply wouldn't see most developers making full use of the next Xbox or PS4. We saw this last gen with the PS2, we see it now with all the PC gamers complaining about having to play corridor shooters and we will see it next gen 2014-2019 when PS4 and XBox 720 games will just be shinier versions of a console built on a 2008 GPU. Not sure anyone wants that.

The point I'm trying to make is that gaming PC have blown away consoles tech-wise for years, but that hasn't shown up in ways that matter to gamers. In the era of multiplat development, PC games tend have better textures and lighting, but not better level geometry, bigger levels, better AI or a greater sense of scale because everybody is developing for the lowest common denominator (PS3/X360).

As I've pointed out in past threads, creating/demonstrating the existence of an audience on a console is traditionally something that first parties do themselves. When rpg makers were swarming to the PS2, MS didn't just keeping cranking out shooters and say 'Oh, if only someone would make an rpg, I'm sure it would make money!' they funded rpgs like Sudeki, KOTOR, Fable and lured a lot of top talent away from Squenix to create Mistwalker. Not all of the attempts worked (Mistwalker is a creative and commercial failure) but enough of them worked so that MS created/demonstrated the existence of an rpg market on the Xboxs. Even Nintendo in the old days followed such a strategy (they bought Silicon Knights because they hoped they would be able to demonstrate/create a demand for M rated games on the GC). One could say the Nintendo of the current gen followed such a strategy with casual gamers.

So in my opinion, the Wii 2 attracting core gamers indifferent to Mario/Metroid/Zelda is contingent upon games being released which are build around its powerful hardware, which is contingent upon A) third parties being stupid or B) Nintendo funding core games in popular genres that traditionally don't sell well on its consoles and continuing to fund such games even if they initially don't put up huge numbers. I don't think either phenomena will occur enough to matter (yes, I'm sure at least one third party will be stupid, it happens every generation).

I don't mind tbh, the consols are doing great atm, the graphic is good, and is nice to see that there will be some space for a new one to come out, just means that they will focus to bring out a brand new condsol that won't be just like everything elles, plus it will be easier for game makers to focus on what they have now, but still have a head start with the graphic for the new once...

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

[QUOTE="Oilers99"] I mean, you could try to point to the gap between the Dreamcast and Xbox as comparable, but the graphical jump has already been far less noticeable from the GC/Xbox/PS2 generation to the 360/PS3 generation than any prior generational jump... And PC gaming hasn't run completely away from console gaming in terms of graphical prowess, despite being five years into this generation, have yet to completely run away from what consoles are doing like they have in the past. I don't know if they're going to be a huge visible gap between a technologically progressive console from 2012 and one from 2014. Maybe there will be, but I'm not convinced yet.S0lidSnake

Exagerrate much? I think the leap from the previous generation has been spectacularly massive so far, especially with some of the newer games out there. You're probably just looking at the worst examples from this generation and comparing those against the best ones from the previous generation. FF12 looks like a pixellated mess when compared to FF13, which looks much crisper and almost as good as the CG found in the previous games. God of War 3 makes God Of War 2 look ancient by comparison. Even new IPs like Batman:AA and Metro 2033 truly demonstrate just how far the PS3/360 has come compared to the first-gen titles.

I agree with this. Yes, first gen games like PD0 and Resistance didn't look all that great, but GoW3 to GoW2 was more than just a noticeable jump.

Plus you cant argue with the fact that games like Assassin's Creed would've been possible on the last gen consoles. The PSP version of Assassin's Creed barely has any crowd.

I am more interested in how the next gen consoles would improve gameplay. I remember watching Heavenly Sword tech demos where they could spawn hundreds on enemies, yet apart from the Halo and Assassin's Creed games, no game this gen has managed that kind of scale. Even Halo and AC games dont have you fighting more than a dozen enemies at once. I love ME and Uncharted games, but I want something on a bigger scale where you control entire armies instead of two other people in your squad.

IMHO the problem isn't 'How does get a thousand enemies onscreen?' the problem is 'How does one make a fight against a thousand enemies interesting?'. Heavenly Sword (and Dynasty Warriors and its imitators) put a ton of enemies onscreen but 99% of the enemies on the field are essentially window dressing (since they and the player have a fairly limited effective range).

Personally I think one of the more interesting ways to use a bunch of characters is to have them fight each other. I loved the handling of big battles in Resistance 1 and KZ3. In both games the other side was stronger than your side, but the battles are dynamic so how things play out is contingent upon what the player does.

[QUOTE="BladesOfAthena"]

[QUOTE="Oilers99"] I mean, you could try to point to the gap between the Dreamcast and Xbox as comparable, but the graphical jump has already been far less noticeable from the GC/Xbox/PS2 generation to the 360/PS3 generation than any prior generational jump... And PC gaming hasn't run completely away from console gaming in terms of graphical prowess, despite being five years into this generation, have yet to completely run away from what consoles are doing like they have in the past. I don't know if they're going to be a huge visible gap between a technologically progressive console from 2012 and one from 2014. Maybe there will be, but I'm not convinced yet.Oilers99

Exagerrate much? I think the leap from the previous generation has been spectacularly massive so far, especially with some of the newer games out there. You're probably just looking at the worst examples from this generation and comparing those against the best ones from the previous generation. FF12 looks like a pixellated mess when compared to FF13, which looks much crisper and almost as good as the CG found in the previous games. God of War 3 makes God Of War 2 look ancient by comparison. Even new IPs like Batman:AA and Metro 2033 truly demonstrate just how far the PS3/360 has come compared to the first-gen titles.

If your point is that the proportions of character models are roughly the same as the prior gen, I agree, but I also agree with Snake and Athena's point that the level of detail on those models is much higher.

Also, it should be kept in mind that the current gen's processing power has done more than merely increase the texture quality and polygon counts of ingame models. AI, level geometry, physics, lighting, terrain destructability, animation and the amount of stuff happening onscreen have all made tremendous leaps forward.

This actually sounds great. I'd rather enjoy the current gen consoles for as long as possible than have a PS4 or new Xbox thrown on me. Plus it gives them more production time to make the new consoles way better than the old ones, which is not an easy feat.

I think 2014 is the earliest we should see new consoles. I hope the PS3 reaches 10 years like the PS2 did.... it makes the investment in a system and its games worthwhile. What I really want to see is backwards compatibility maintained for both MS and Sony for their next consoles. One thing I really enjoy about PC gaming is the ability to keep playing games I bought many many years ago... but if my PS died or my PS2 died.... well, i'm out of luck.KittyKat

PS2 B/C was taken out of later PS3 models, but all models are B/C with the PS1 and of course the PS2 is B/C with the PS1.

What I really want to see is backwards compatibility maintained for both MS and Sony for their next consoles. One thing I really enjoy about PC gaming is the ability to keep playing games I bought many many years ago... but if my PS died or my PS2 died.... well, i'm out of luck.KittyKat

I would think that they would put that in by default -- it's a standard inclusion for a new system, after all, and I can't see many people being willing to jump to a new console without it. Especially after so much time and money has been invested into this generation alone.

What I'm curious about is how they're gonna move all our digitally bought games over to a new system. Are they going to allow us to move them from one hard drive to another? Keep our accounts logged and let us re-download them all we want on the new systems? Or... what? They've never had to plan for this before. I'm hoping they come up with a reasonable way of keeping all our downloads logged.

IMHO the problem isn't 'How does get a thousand enemies onscreen?' the problem is 'How does one make a fight against a thousand enemies interesting?'. Heavenly Sword (and Dynasty Warriors and its imitators) put a ton of enemies onscreen but 99% of the enemies on the field are essentially window dressing (since they and the player have a fairly limited effective range).

Personally I think one of the more interesting ways to use a bunch of characters is to have them fight each other. I loved the handling of big battles in Resistance 1 and KZ3. In both games the other side was stronger than your side, but the battles are dynamic so how things play out is contingent upon what the player does.

CarnageHeart

Definitely. I remember when developers hyped up the ability to display leagues and leagues of enemies on-screen, but never have I seen a really good, practical application of that apart from making some large-scale set-pieces. That's cool, but hardly the best use of the tech available.

Perhaps the reason they haven't done more with that is because they can't code artificial intelligence sophisticated enough to allow each and every NPC to act dependently and dynamically to the player's actions or to each other? Because I get the feeling that a lot of those large-scale sequences in games just make the AI follow a very scripted behavior pattern, which devalues the impact of the effect, I think.

No it doesn't. Plenty of titles like God Of War 3 and Uncharted 2 completely blow TF2 out of the water. The only reason why you think TF2 is comparable visually is because you find the art****more appealing. If we're gonna argue based on artistic merit alone, then I can just as easily say that Donkey Kong Country looks just as good as Okami. :P

BladesOfAthena

You took the two biggest powerhouse titles on PS3 as your examples....again, I said I was talking about technical merits, I was talking about visuals and aesthetics.

Sure, there are games that go above and beyond the visuals of TF2 like Uncharted 2, and GoW III and Crysis (which blow both those games out of the water)....but TF2 stacks up pretty fine against the majority of overall titles released on this gen of systems.

Not to mention, with it's stylistic look and emphasis on art-style, the visuals in TF2 will look less dated years from now, despite it's technical aspects not being as advanced as other games. Hell, there are some UE3 games that already look more dated and long in the tooth compared to TF2 running on the much older source engine.

Lets go back a number of years to show how this has proven to be true. Which game's look from 2003 looks more dated today? Wind Waker or DX2?....DX2 looks FAR more dated in comparison to WW nowadays, while WW cell shaded look (which people originally mocked) has given it's visuals more longevity. Now which was running on a more advanced engine and on the more advanced hardware?

There's a reason old games like Okami and Beyond Good & Evil have been brought over to much more powerful systems this gen and manage to still look good with some simple tweaks and a resolution upgrade.

The only thing I care about is if a game looks good....I don't care how it does it, just as long as it's something that pleasing to look at for the hours I'll be playing it.

Meanwhile you have people yapping on about tech jargon they sometimes no nothing about or getting hung up on minor things like how good the pored look or that a game is a bit below HD....and besides, in terms of technical merits, the capabilities of PC trumped anything on consoles long ago. To this day there isn't a game out there that features the same intense and demanding level of graphics that Crysis did back in 2007...not even Crysis 2....the only one that seems to look to finally deliver is the PC version of Battlefield 3. If there is such a concern for graphics, just buy a PC. Consoles are supposed to be a mainstream and cost effective gaming alternative, they aren't supposed to be constantly competiting with the more advanced hardware and capabilities and ever evolving nature of PC.

This is also why Nintendo's rumored approach with their new system is smart and their timing is right. Some developers want a bit more power to work with, others say that it's too soon for new consoles because the skyrocking development costs that come with the expectations of what's to be delivered on new system gen.
By delivering a system that's a step ahead of the PS3 and 360...but not a huge leap...they afford developers a bit higher ceiling of better capability in comparison to the competition that some developers want, while also also staying within the range of current development budgets as well as hardware understanding.
In addition, keep in mind that the Wii managed to trounce the 360 and PS3 in terms of sales, despite being on hardware that wasn't even really ahead of last-gen's tech. In that regard, Nintendo just has to improve in itself, and this new system may be a step ahead of the 360 and PS3....but it'll be a HUGE gigantic leap ahead of the Wii.
I don't see Sony and MS putting out systems that's as much a leap ahead of their new systems in the next couple of years....not if they want to keep the price reasonable and where we don't have to deal with another "$599 US Dollars!" fiasco (or more), which in part really hurt Sony's launch this gen.

it was a smart move for nintenod to no t go crazy this gen thats all i really see out of this whole i deal ,

cause nintneod will come out with cutting edge tech at a cheaper price , and according to all rumors so far gta v is a stronger contender for wii 2 and thq ea and other companys have plans for wii 2 to be announced at e3 ,

and it will not just be demoed at e3 it will be released 2012 ,

3ds launched this year , and going by nintendos recent record theitr console follows their handheld ,

gc gen saw gba 2000 , gc 2001 , ds 2004 wii 2006 3ds 2011 wii 2?

and frankly i think nintendo is droping the hammer this gen , why you ask look what their current approach is-its still got motion but it also has a traditional pad in mind , and graphics to and rumor no friend codes, plus think if ms and sony dont get their consoles out til 2014-2015 (which is possible)

nintendo is going to be 3 yrs into its run ,

the support will be there ,the line up will be good enough for those who didnt purchase day ones , will be buying one cause of that ,andthe price will be cheaper by the time 720 ps4 come out ,(m y estimation for 720 ps4 pricing is 500 -600 (wiii 2s estimate is already 300 -349.99) nintneod is always the cheapest product on the market ,unless it drops in price -dependin on demand , the ps4 720 will be mighty expensive no matter when it comes out

and dont forget nintnedo runs 5 yr life cycles so 2 yrs after ps4 is out we could very well see a n7 that is on par with that gen , and still cheaper then the competition thus nintneod drops the hammer

and goes full steam you dotn wannt mess with nintendo that is one train your not going to stop unless you do somthing right,

and high prices are never right ,

my opinion based on this ,

they are going to do somthing drastic to this market some bodys going to fall ,

sad but true , and in the end only they can blame them selfs for what happens next,

im not saying who it is , but its some body whos made mistakes or some one whos never been a top contender!

they know who they are ,nintendo has to be smart enough to last from the 80s to their hard times to now, and still prosper !

if you dont think nintendo is smart you think their bad , then i think your severely mistaken!

I still expect 2013 personally, if the wii 2 comes out in 2012 like expected, are ms and sony really going to allow Nintendo ( the leaders this gen) to get a 2 year lead on their next systems, sounds like a recipe for disaster.

wizdom

I wish we didn't have to wait long for Sony and Microsoft's next consoles though. By the third year of a console I get jaded and am ready for new tech. I buy the most games in the second or third year of a console. With this gen being so long I'm hardly buying new games anymore. I don't care about Gears of War 3, Killzone 3, or anything else really, except for L.A. Noire I guess. I want to see games run on new consoles that will blow us away.

The point I'm trying to make is that gaming PC have blown away consoles tech-wise for years, but that hasn't shown up in ways that matter to gamers. In the era of multiplat development, PC games tend have better textures and lighting, but not better level geometry, bigger levels, better AI or a greater sense of scale because everybody is developing for the lowest common denominator (PS3/X360).

As I've pointed out in past threads, creating/demonstrating the existence of an audience on a console is traditionally something that first parties do themselves. When rpg makers were swarming to the PS2, MS didn't just keeping cranking out shooters and say 'Oh, if only someone would make an rpg, I'm sure it would make money!' they funded rpgs like Sudeki, KOTOR, Fable and lured a lot of top talent away from Squenix to create Mistwalker. Not all of the attempts worked (Mistwalker is a creative and commercial failure) but enough of them worked so that MS created/demonstrated the existence of an rpg market on the Xboxs. Even Nintendo in the old days followed such a strategy (they bought Silicon Knights because they hoped they would be able to demonstrate/create a demand for M rated games on the GC). One could say the Nintendo of the current gen followed such a strategy with casual gamers.

So in my opinion, the Wii 2 attracting core gamers indifferent to Mario/Metroid/Zelda is contingent upon games being released which are build around its powerful hardware, which is contingent upon A) third parties being stupid or B) Nintendo funding core games in popular genres that traditionally don't sell well on its consoles and continuing to fund such games even if they initially don't put up huge numbers. I don't think either phenomena will occur enough to matter (yes, I'm sure at least one third party will be stupid, it happens every generation).

CarnageHeart

My fear is that if Sony and MS come out with a new console in 2014 with a 2013 or 2014 GPU, they will suffer the same fate as the PC since the Wii would've built up a sizeable market share among the core. You disagree that Nintendo will not be able to grab the core audience with Wii 2, correct? Well then i think we will have to wait and see, because Nintendo seems to be going after this crowd... not sure how they will do it but they have done a pretty impressive job of lining up third party support for the 3DS.

My fear is that if Sony and MS come out with a new console in 2014 with a 2013 or 2014 GPU, they will suffer the same fate as the PC since the Wii would've built up a sizeable market share among the core. You disagree that Nintendo will not be able to grab the core audience with Wii 2, correct? Well then i think we will have to wait and see, because Nintendo seems to be going after this crowd... not sure how they will do it but they have done a pretty impressive job of lining up third party support for the 3DS.

S0lidSnake

Apples and oranges IMHO. Nintendo's console audience has been isolated for generations and during that period of isolation they have become increasingly fixated on a handful of franchises. But Nintendo's handhelds have always been popular and well supported so the audience never got 'peculiar'.

[QUOTE="CarnageHeart"]

That isn't gameplay. That looks like something from one of the TF2 promo videos. For an example of headshots in gameplay, check out the link below (the head doesn't fly apart).

locknload17

No, it's not, but as was said...the "Meet the Team" videos were created with the same engine the game runs on, with the only difference being a slight enhancement to the character models and the use of motion capture for animations since it's a scripted promo video.

Aside from that, for all intents in purposes...the actually look of the game is pretty much as shown in that video, in fact, the video you posted pretty much shows this...again, which goes back to my point. Those visuals stack up well in comparison to numerous games released this gen.

So why exactly did you post aCG video and claim its gameplay? Have you actually played the game? If so, how did you make that mistake?

In today's economy, I don't think gamers (and their parents) are willing to pay more than they already are with this generation. Surely the next generation will up the price of games again. And then the next gen again will support even higher HD and 3D, so everyone will feel they need to buy all new hardware. Very expensive this has become.