Innovations(Wii) vs. Graphics(PS3 and XBOX 360)

Introduction:

Considering only home consoles as we all know there are few if any innovative hardcore games on handhelds.

We all know that games are becoming evermore expensive due the rapid enhancement in technology. However, one of the most expensive cost to developers is graphics. Considering cost, developers are more hesitant when it comes to innovation. If they experiment and try to innovate, then they will have to cut cost in order to reduce the risk.

Take for example Squaresoft, they risked big budgets for a graphically astounding (during its time) Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which was a miserable failure and forced them to merge with Enix. Their fault was that they were trying something "NEW," outside of the ordinary for them. Note: Of course Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a movie title, but its history provides a lesson that can be applied to video game development in general.

Argument:

I believe that Wii will propel many game developers to innovate both in gameplay and graphically, which will in some shape or form make it to higher-end graphical games. While the cost of last generation's graphics was still possible for many developers to innovate, the current generation is just too expensive. Instead of forcing developers to compete on a graphical level*, the Wii will allow developers to compete on gameplay.

*The graphical level I am speaking of is about more polygons and coloring, and not being innovative.

Let's take a look at the graphically intense games (from the PS3 and XBOX 360). Are there many innovations in any of these titles?

Examples:

1. All FPS games so far have made little progress in gameplay (i.e. they have mainly borrowed from many, many previous FPS titles with some tweaks). Note: Gears of War's cover system isn't new for those who don't know. And although, I do like the art style of bulky guys, its graphics is no where as innovative as lets say LOZ: The Wind Waker and Okami.

2. Ninja Gaiden, a major hit title, clearly is a derivative of Devil May Cry.

3. If we consider the PC, Crysis doesn't look like its gameplay have deviated too much from previous generation, FarCry, but Crysis is not out yet, so I am not the one to judge it properly.

Basically, I believe the Wii will be the "guinea pig" for many big games on the PS3 and XBOX 360. We all see developers "borrow" from one another, and it only makes sense that developers will borrow interesting innovative elements from other developer's successful titles (e.g. Many games have already borrowed from Mario and The Legend of Zelda).

I noticed that there is a strong correlation between graphics and innovation. The "better" the graphics, the less the innovations (i.e. "better" as in more polygons and coloring, not innovative graphics).

Examples:

High in Gameplay Innovations and/or Experimentations:

Fable 2, Spore

Fable 2 and Spore looks about on par graphically with other Wii games, yet, why don't people criticize it as much as other Wii's games? (Fanboys...?)

The Orange Box is also quite innovative, but the graphics isn't exactly next-gen compared to other FPS.

Introduction of Interesting New Ideas (but not that innovative):

Kane and Lynch - new context for FPS gameplay and maybe some other minor innovations

Army of Two - brings many new ideas to team cooperation

The graphics for these two games are not up to par with other FPS, but they do in fact bring something new. Notice that they are graphically "better" than Fable 2 and Spore (or at they are in my opinion), but not as innovative or have had less experimentations with by the developers.

There is probably plenty more examples that many of you can add, but the above list should be enough to get the general idea. The reason why I am writing this is because I don't understand why people are criticizing the Wii for its graphics when many other games on other consoles are similar to its graphics? I also do not understand why so many people hate the Wii, when in fact, the Wii will probably help other consoles innovate as history seems to indicate. Without the Wii, we might eventually get bored due to slow evolving and rehashed gameplay.

Also, I don't believe the Wii is a fad. Its games are the main reason people are buying the console, not its unique control scheme; this is what I know from word of mouth. The control scheme is only secondary. And the definition of a fad is "A short-lived popular fashion" after all. The Wii by no means, is "short-lived," but of course that is debatable as the other current generation consoles are planning to survive for another 5-9 years or so.

The review of Table Tennis on the Wii states that the reaction time between when you swing the Wii-mote and when the player actually hits the ball is atrocious.

Lack of 1:1 sensing is a problem.

Introduction:

Considering only home consoles as we all know there are few if any innovative hardcore games on handhelds.

We all know that games are becoming evermore expensive due the rapid enhancement in technology. However, one of the most expensive cost to developers is graphics. Considering cost, developers are more hesitant when it comes to innovation. If they experiment and try to innovate, then they will have to cut cost in order to reduce the risk.

Take for example Squaresoft, they risked big budgets for a graphically astounding (during its time) Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within, which was a miserable failure and forced them to merge with Enix. Their fault was that they were trying something "NEW," outside of the ordinary for them. Note: Of course Final Fantasy: The Spirits Within is a movie title, but its history provides a lesson that can be applied to video game development in general.

Argument:

I believe that Wii will propel many game developers to innovate both in gameplay and graphically, which will in some shape or form make it to higher-end graphical games. While the cost of last generation's graphics was still possible for many developers to innovate, the current generation is just too expensive. Instead of forcing developers to compete on a graphical level*, the Wii will allow developers to compete on gameplay.

*The graphical level I am speaking of is about more polygons and coloring, and not being innovative.

Let's take a look at the graphically intense games (from the PS3 and XBOX 360). Are there many innovations in any of these titles?

Examples:

1. All FPS games so far have made little progress in gameplay (i.e. they have mainly borrowed from many, many previous FPS titles with some tweaks). Note: Gears of War's cover system isn't new for those who don't know. And although, I do like the art style of bulky guys, its graphics is no where as innovative as lets say LOZ: The Wind Waker and Okami.

2. Ninja Gaiden, a major hit title, clearly is a derivative of Devil May Cry.

3. If we consider the PC, Crysis doesn't look like its gameplay have deviated too much from previous generation, FarCry, but Crysis is not out yet, so I am not the one to judge it properly.

Basically, I believe the Wii will be the "guinea pig" for many big games on the PS3 and XBOX 360. We all see developers "borrow" from one another, and it only makes sense that developers will borrow interesting innovative elements from other developer's successful titles (e.g. Many games have already borrowed from Mario and The Legend of Zelda).

I noticed that there is a strong correlation between graphics and innovation. The "better" the graphics, the less the innovations (i.e. "better" as in more polygons and coloring, not innovative graphics).

Examples:

High in Gameplay Innovations and/or Experimentations:

Fable 2, Spore

Fable 2 and Spore looks about on par graphically with other Wii games, yet, why don't people criticize it as much as other Wii's games? (Fanboys...?)

The Orange Box is also quite innovative, but the graphics isn't exactly next-gen compared to other FPS.

Introduction of Interesting New Ideas (but not that innovative):

Kane and Lynch - new context for FPS gameplay and maybe some other minor innovations

Army of Two - brings many new ideas to team cooperation

The graphics for these two games are not up to par with other FPS, but they do in fact bring something new. Notice that they are graphically "better" than Fable 2 and Spore (or at they are in my opinion), but not as innovative or have had less experimentations with by the developers.

There is probably plenty more examples that many of you can add, but the above list should be enough to get the general idea. The reason why I am writing this is because I don't understand why people are criticizing the Wii for its graphics when many other games on other consoles are similar to its graphics? I also do not understand why so many people hate the Wii, when in fact, the Wii will probably help other consoles innovate as history seems to indicate. Without the Wii, we might eventually get bored due to slow evolving and rehashed gameplay.

Also, I don't believe the Wii is a fad. Its games are the main reason people are buying the console, not its unique control scheme; this is what I know from word of mouth. The control scheme is only secondary. And the definition of a fad is "A short-lived popular fashion" after all. The Wii by no means, is "short-lived," but of course that is debatable as the other current generation consoles are planning to survive for another 5-9 years or so.

TooBadUnknown

sure dude, all the gramdma's are gettin' it because it's goin' to have the bestest game on it.....super mario galaxy!!!!

Fable 2 and Spore looks about on par graphically with other Wii games

TooBadUnknown

motion sensing is not innovation, its been done before, and its just basically a different way of controlling, it doesnt re-invent gameplay
next your gonna tell us that R.O.B. was an great innovative achievement??
shiram

Uhh...I never said motion sensing is innovative. Please show some respect and read my article before replying. My argument is that the Wii allows game developers to experiment on, which leads to innovation. The reason why is because the Wii's graphical capability relieves developers from competing on a graphical basis to a gameplay basis.

The review of Table Tennis on the Wii states that the reaction time between when you swing the Wii-mote and when the player actually hits the ball is atrocious.

Lack of 1:1 sensing is a problem.

TekkenMaster606

I never played Table Tennis on 360 nor Wii. Question for you though, do the different characters have different stats? I.E speed, strength, stamina etc?

[QUOTE="shiram"]motion sensing is not innovation, its been done before, and its just basically a different way of controlling, it doesnt re-invent gameplay
next your gonna tell us that R.O.B. was an great innovative achievement??
TooBadUnknown

Uhh...I never said motion sensing is innovative. Please show some respect and read my article before replying. My argument is that the Wii allows game developers to experiment on, which leads to innovation. The reason why is because the Wii's graphical capability relieves developers from competing on a graphical basis to a gameplay basis.

in a perfect world we'd get the great graphics and innovation, and in the respect the wii is handicapped compared to a ps3 or 360
i'd say what "allows developpers" to experiment on the wii is the architecture thats well-known
once ps3 and 360's programming, and development tools are up to par, and well known it shouldnt be an issue anymore

wii wont have anything good that isn't first party

res evil 4 will always be it's best