The 'RPG Theory'

This topic runs in conjunction with an alternative topic entitled 'The Importance of Art-Style', which can be found here: http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25210295&page=0

As I browse through the topics here on System Wars I see one sustained attack on the credibility of the Wii, that is the graphics argument and the attack on the technical specifications of the console in general. I was pondering what it really means for something to be 'cutting-edge' or 'advanced' when a thought dawned upon me: technology never truly progresses.

You may be questioning the significance of the title, after all this topic has nothing to do with RPGs as such, however since this is a gaming forum I thought that an analogy directly relating to games would be the best way to orchestrate my points. As I run through my argument keep the phrase 'technology never truly progresses' in the back of your mind and relate it to each point.

Firstly what are the core gameplay elements of an RPG:

- In most RPGs the main goal regardless of story is to 'level-up', to become stronger as you progress. Shigeru Miyamoto once likened it to being bound by chains/ropes that slowly loosen as you advance into the game. In this respect technology is very similar, as we progress through time the technology becomes more powerful, more advanced and more complex.

-Now consider your position as a character in an RPG in relation to your enemies. You start the game as a weakling with few abilities and attacks, however your enemies are also weak allowing you to defeat them. As you progress you 'level-up', become stronger, learn new attacks, gain new abilities and so forth. Here is the problem: as you become stronger so too do your enemies. This effectively leaves you in the same position as you were at the start, both you and your enemies are of similar strength. It is this false sense of progression evident in RPGs that also manifests itself in technology.

You see, as the capacity of our technology increases so do the demands upon it in addition to the consumer expectations. This is why we still have the same problems of slowdown, pop-up, glitches and 3D 'clipping' to name a few. So whilst hardware may be more powerful, its ability to rectify the recurrent problems is negated due to the additional demands of the software. Just like an RPG we have progression matched equally by the threats to the progression leaving us in the same position we have always been. That is why graphical advancement through technological means is but a transient and short-lived feat, it is through art that graphics can remain on the 'cutting-edge'  forever, as great art only becomes better with age; like a fine wine or a stunning composition.

Pixel shaders throw your entire "technology never truly progresses" out the door.

The whole "art always stays cutting edge" is also BS. It adds alot of longevity to it, but hard remains cutting edge for any significant amount of time. Do you consider artsy SNES games as cutting edge? Maybe.....if you completely omit the fact that its stuck on low resolution, limited color palette, limited frames of animation, limited objects on screen, poor sprite transformation, and lots of other graphical goodies that would've still allowed the game to be artistic but retain the benefits of improved technology.

A good post but several years before its time. 

I assault Wii without mercy because Nintendo made a console of grossly inadequate power and functionality.  Not only did they produce this a crappy console, Nintendo has utilized a marketing stratergy that seeks to reduce games to a child's play thing while encorporating a large sphere of society who will purchase just about anything that provides quick and easy entertainment.

Games should not sell a console.  A console should be little more than a pile of hardware that processes information.  Unfortunately, the industry utilizes monopolies over game developers -- instead of focusing on making the most powerful, functional, and cheap machine on the market -- to drive sales which, in turn, reduces the potential power and thrift of consoles.  If you judge Wii by the efficentcy of its function (processing data) you should come away with a sour taste in your mouth. 

Ignoring the "art" of a game will continue until games can replecate photorealism in an efficent manner.  It is a shame in many cases, but I welcome the disregard of "art" in games for the sake of progress.  When we cannot progress any further from a graphical stand point, I will most likely rant with you.  Stopping the evolution of gaming -- or bastardizing its development (as Wii has attempted) -- is simply not acceptable at the current time.

Pixel shaders throw your entire "technology never truly progresses" out the door.

The whole "art always stays cutting edge" is also BS. It adds alot of longevity to it, but hard remains cutting edge for any significant amount of time. Do you consider artsy SNES games as cutting edge? Maybe.....if you completely omit the fact that its stuck on low resolution, limited color palette, limited frames of animation, limited objects on screen, poor sprite transformation, and lots of other graphical goodies that would've still allowed the game to be artistic but retain the benefits of improved technology.

XaosII

Yes I do consider 'artsy' SNES games such as Yoshi's Island to be 'cutting-edge'. Your mindset is that of a typical 'hardcore' gamer, you instantaneously shift your focus towards the technological aspects of graphics. It seems that many on this forum think 'complexity=progression', when that is so rarely the case. You must consider everything in context, what you listed were technological deficiences of the SNES, however this is with hindsight, at the time those technologies were cutting-edge. At present PS3 technology is cutting-edge, that will not remain indefinitely, and you will be reciting those exact same arguments in the future when discussing a successor to the PS3.

[QUOTE="XaosII"]

Pixel shaders throw your entire "technology never truly progresses" out the door.

The whole "art always stays cutting edge" is also BS. It adds alot of longevity to it, but hard remains cutting edge for any significant amount of time. Do you consider artsy SNES games as cutting edge? Maybe.....if you completely omit the fact that its stuck on low resolution, limited color palette, limited frames of animation, limited objects on screen, poor sprite transformation, and lots of other graphical goodies that would've still allowed the game to be artistic but retain the benefits of improved technology.

Caviglia

Yes I do consider 'artsy' SNES games such as Yoshi's Island to be 'cutting-edge'. Your mindset is that of a typical 'hardcore' gamer, you instantaneously shift your focus towards the technological aspects of graphics. It seems that many on this forum think 'complexity=progression', when that is so rarely the case. You must consider everything in context, what you listed were technological deficiences of the SNES, however this is with hindsight, at the time those technologies were cutting-edge. At present PS3 technology is cutting-edge, that will not remain indefinitely, and you will be reciting those exact same arguments in the future when discussing a successor to the PS3.

You pretty much just said it yourself. Artistic games have slightly better longevity. Hardly makes them great forever. Even old classics could remain the same in essence and still benefit from technology that is newer.

That doesnt seem to make them much different than purely graphical games.

A good post but several years before its time. 

I assault Wii without mercy because Nintendo made a console of grossly inadequate power and functionality.  Not only did they produce this a crappy console, Nintendo has utilized a marketing stratergy that seeks to reduce games to a child's play thing while encorporating a large sphere of society who will purchase just about anything that provides quick and easy entertainment.

Games should not sell a console.  A console should be little more than a pile of hardware that processes information.  Unfortunately, the industry utilizes monopolies over game developers -- instead of focusing on making the most powerful, functional, and cheap machine on the market -- to drive sales which, in turn, reduces the potential power and thrift of consoles.  If you judge Wii by the efficentcy of its function (processing data) you should come away with a sour taste in your mouth. 

Ignoring the "art" of a game will continue until games can replecate photorealism in an efficent manner.  It is a shame in many cases, but I welcome the disregard of "art" in games for the sake of progress.  When we cannot progress any further from a graphical stand point, I will most likely rant with you.  Stopping the evolution of gaming -- or bastardizing its development (as Wii has attempted) -- is simply not acceptable at the current time.

FoamingPanda

Inadequate in relation to what? Its competitors? Consumer expectation? The PS3 and 360 will be deemed inadequate before long whilst the gameplay of the Wii will still be fresh just as playing with regular controllers remained interesting until last-gen.

I also find the negative connotations behind child as off-putting. You, like many others on this forum, seem to place yourself on a pedestal when it comes to gaming. Do you not want our medium to reach a truly mass audience which will bring with it greater demand for diversity and originality with new ideas not traditonally associated with your conventional gamer being brought to the fore? Genius is the re-discovery of childhood, the fact that the Wii creates such intrigue and interest is because it is new and different; that should be celebrated. Is it 'child-like' to enjoy oneself? Is it 'child-like' to be enamoured by simplicity?

Also I fail to understand this: 'instead of focusing on making the most powerful, functional, and cheap machine on the market '. The Wii fulfils all those criteria, aside from being the most powerful (in a purely technological sense). It is also very interesting to observe what the function of a console is for different people, for me the function of a console is entertainment for others it may be a 'media centre'. Your analysis brings about a more utilitarian argument that the function is data processing. For me the Wii is remarkably efficient, the power consumption, noise-level and interface are sublime considering the size of the machine. This is advancing technology in a different way, not simply upping the horsepower, but finding new ways to use existing technology; which is just as beneficial. We should be thankful that there is a choice of consoles to satiate the needs of most audiences.

Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="Caviglia"][QUOTE="XaosII"]

Pixel shaders throw your entire "technology never truly progresses" out the door.

The whole "art always stays cutting edge" is also BS. It adds alot of longevity to it, but hard remains cutting edge for any significant amount of time. Do you consider artsy SNES games as cutting edge? Maybe.....if you completely omit the fact that its stuck on low resolution, limited color palette, limited frames of animation, limited objects on screen, poor sprite transformation, and lots of other graphical goodies that would've still allowed the game to be artistic but retain the benefits of improved technology.

XaosII

Yes I do consider 'artsy' SNES games such as Yoshi's Island to be 'cutting-edge'. Your mindset is that of a typical 'hardcore' gamer, you instantaneously shift your focus towards the technological aspects of graphics. It seems that many on this forum think 'complexity=progression', when that is so rarely the case. You must consider everything in context, what you listed were technological deficiences of the SNES, however this is with hindsight, at the time those technologies were cutting-edge. At present PS3 technology is cutting-edge, that will not remain indefinitely, and you will be reciting those exact same arguments in the future when discussing a successor to the PS3.

You pretty much just said it yourself. Artistic games have slightly better longevity. Hardly makes them great forever. Even old classics could remain the same in essence and still benefit from technology that is newer.

That doesnt seem to make them much different than purely graphical games.

I said at the time the technologies were great in addition to the art-style, now only the art-style remains. Take a game like Gran Turismo for example, the technological side of the graphics was good at the time but it has no definable stylistic direction whatsoever so now it looks archaic. Gunstar Heroes, for another example, had both cutting-edge art and technology. Whilst the technology is but a scratch on todays technologies the art-style stands firm.

The basic gist of the argument is that good art-remains forever whilst technological prowess is short-lived.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.TheCrazed420

It certainly would be daft to disregard photorealism as a credible art-style, however my worry is that we will soon reach the plateaux of graphical photorealism and therefore the art-style will become obsolete because of the very technological progression it relies on to exist in the first place. This is because photorealism relies directly on technological power whilst other art-styles are more independent.

Not entirely true. Your analogy may pass with RPGs like FFVIII or Oblivion that do dynamic leveling but it does not in turn pass for the majority of the genre.

You can be low level at the beginning and struggle all you want, but if you play an RPG correctly you can essentially tower over the remainder of the game.

Not all RPGs are dynamic in other words, most are static.

Not entirely true. Your analogy may pass with RPGs like FFVIII or Oblivion that do dynamic leveling but it does not in turn pass for the majority of the genre.

You can be low level at the beginning and struggle all you want, but if you play an RPG correctly you can essentially tower over the remainder of the game.

Not all RPGs are dynamic in other words, most are static.

-RPGamer-

I think you may have taken my interpretation a little too literally, I was simply using the model of a conventional RPG to put across a point. No worries however. :)

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.TheCrazed420

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Not entirely true. Your analogy may pass with RPGs like FFVIII or Oblivion that do dynamic leveling but it does not in turn pass for the majority of the genre.

You can be low level at the beginning and struggle all you want, but if you play an RPG correctly you can essentially tower over the remainder of the game.

Not all RPGs are dynamic in other words, most are static.

Caviglia

I think you may have taken my interpretation a little too literally, I was simply using the model of a conventional RPG to put across a point. No worries however. :)

[QUOTE="-RPGamer-"]

Not entirely true. Your analogy may pass with RPGs like FFVIII or Oblivion that do dynamic leveling but it does not in turn pass for the majority of the genre.

You can be low level at the beginning and struggle all you want, but if you play an RPG correctly you can essentially tower over the remainder of the game.

Not all RPGs are dynamic in other words, most are static.

Caviglia

I think you may have taken my interpretation a little too literally, I was simply using the model of a conventional RPG to put across a point. No worries however. :)

I know, I just wanted to point out some flaws in your RPG analogy from someone who plays a lot of them. Other than that, it was a nice read. :)

[QUOTE="TheCrazed420"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.Caviglia

It certainly would be daft to disregard photorealism as a credible art-style, however my worry is that we will soon reach the plateaux of graphical photorealism and therefore the art-style will become obsolete. This is because photorealism relies directly on technological power whilst other art-styles are more independent.

I see your point, but the extent to which you use the metaphor is a bit hyperbolic. It is a very common piece of knowledge rooted in the base of concept that with expansion comes increased consequence. The same is true, as you illustrated with gaming. There will always be greater demands with the progression of technology, but the extent of this doesn't lead to an inexorable boundary. We will always attempt to transcend boundaries created by current limitations, but as it stands a boundary hasn't been reached. Hardware and technology have continually evolved over a 25 year period, and it ever continues. At a certain point, this continual level of evolution will hit a wall, whether it be by the limitations of  technology, expectations or economics, but until then, hardware has, and will continue to evolve.
bman784

I suppose the Wii is a pre-emptive strike of sorts. We can see the leap in graphics becoming more and more marginal, or certainly the direct benefits of graphics in relation to gameplay becoming more stunted. However you are right in saying that we have not hit a wall just yet, but I think it is better to act before a problem occurs rather than after. The conventional gaming cycle still has a little life left in it but if someone does not act within the next two generations then this approach will finally lose its momentum. I think the field is open for an innovation that changes the visual interface of the player rather than the kinetic interface as with the Wii.

[QUOTE="TheCrazed420"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.Caviglia

It certainly would be daft to disregard photorealism as a credible art-style, however my worry is that we will soon reach the plateaux of graphical photorealism and therefore the art-style will become obsolete. This is because photorealism relies directly on technological power whilst other art-styles are more independent.

Inadequate in relation to what? Its competitors? Consumer expectation? The PS3 and 360 will be deemed inadequate before long whilst the gameplay of the Wii will still be fresh just as playing with regular controllers remained interesting until last-gen.

The Wii is inadequate in relation to the current processing power of its CPU and GPU's, the price at which a suitable console can be mass produced with powerful hardware, and how it benchmarks well below other consoles on the market.  Divorse yourself away from GAMES for a moment; think only of hardware.  Wii relies on developer monopolization and the theft of intellectual property to sell games.  The console itself is scarcely more powerful than a gamecube.  It doesn't matter if the gameplay will be "more fun" for years to come.  Consoles should be judged soley on the power, cost, and functionality of their hardware.

I also find the negative connotations behind child as off-putting. You, like many others on this forum, seem to place yourself on a pedestal when it comes to gaming. Do you not want our medium to reach a truly mass audience which will bring with it greater demand for diversity and originality with new ideas not traditonally associated with your conventional gamer being brought to the fore? Genius is the re-discovery of childhood, the fact that the Wii creates such intrigue and interest is because it is new and different; that should be celebrated. Is it 'child-like' to enjoy oneself? Is it 'child-like' to be enamoured by simplicity?

I would hate for our medium to reach a truly mass audience who views it as a meer toy that has little more to offer than cheap and thought-free entertainment.  You do not see casual gamers embracing the Wii for the reason, "oh wow, I could play games that present all sorts of great ideas and interesting settings."  Instead, they see a little ball they can hit across the screen with one of their friends.  I would rather see gaming die than watch it decline into a simplistic and childish toy.  When almost all of us think of the word "DVD player," we think only of a pile of hardware that processes data; that is the connatation I wish to slap across all consoles and PC's. 

Also I fail to understand this: 'instead of focusing on making the most powerful, functional, and cheap machine on the market '. The Wii fulfils all those criteria, aside from being the most powerful (in a purely technological sense).

Wii presents minimal advances in processing capability.  Wii relies on an outdated optical format and praises a controller -- which ideally should be little more than a USB device that any console/PC could use if the developer wanted to use it for a game -- as its primary source of innovation.  Examine the hardware of the Wii -- you're getting scarcely more than a gamecube at a marked-up price. Wii serves no function other than playing video games.  The statement you quoted was intended to address consoles at large; most consumers chose their console for access to a certain library of games. What developer need worry about lowering the cost or raising the power of a console when mindless fans will purchase a console for the games released for it?

It is also very interesting to observe what the function of a console is for different people, for me the function of a console is entertainment for others it may be a 'media centre'. Your analysis brings about a more utilitarian argument that the function is data processing. For me the Wii is remarkably efficient, the power consumption, noise-level and interface are sublime considering the size of the machine.

The function of a console is simply to process data, provide the most functionality, and operate in the most efficent manner possible.  Power consumption and noise level are certainly aspects of efficentcy, but the other superficial functions you might slap across a console are simply not valid.  Software and firmware exist for specific reasons.  Only in this sick and sad industry are games wed to consoles.  No union should exist between games and consoles; they're seperate things and stand away from each other. The Wii benchmarks well below other consoles and numerable improvements could be made to its hardware.  

Sadly, this industry is sick.  You cite things like the interface and controller as if they were a part of the console.  It is sad the industry is so corrupted that console developers monopolize control schemes and developer rights.  DIVORCE THE IDEA OF CONSOLE AND GAMES.  We should never shun or praise a console for the gameplay found in games.  The success or failure of the games a console plays does not matter when we consider the console itself.

Games are the property of developers and publishers, nothing more.

We must demand that the gaming industry understands this.  We want the most powerful machine at the lowest price.  Standardize a USB hub on all future consoles, implement DX10 or the most effective progamming language, and use a standard optical drive.

Your own post contains the reasons why it is flawed.

You say that 'issues like slowdown continue because demands on the hardware increase over time.' You neglect to touch on what those demands mean for games themselves.

Games created with more graphical power create more gameplay possibilities that make for better games, thanks to the ability to simultaneously process more objects with increasing realism, produce better and more complex environments, create better AI, and more. We're even beginning to see that now, with games like Bioshock or Dead Rising. The enormous emergent 3D world of GTA3 wasn't possible on earlier consoles. 3D gaming couldn't be properly done on the SNES and Genesis. Those are just examples. We'll certainly see more of them this generation.

As a result, graphical power leads to gameplay advances.
sonicmj1

Once again the notion that 'complexity=progression' rears its ugly head. Making something more complex doesn't make it better, otherwise we would all be listening to prog rock.

Aside from that notion you are perfectly correct to say that graphical advances have led to gameplay advances, however that is true when we have the leap from 2D to 3D (an innovation in itself) or other similar large-scale shake-ups. However as of now that jump between each generation is becoming smaller and smaller, graphics were once a credible form of advance now they are but a tip-toe forward.

It would be untrue to mention Dead Rising, the last-gen consoles could generate as many on-screen enemies albeit at a low level of detail. Pikmin springs to mind as a prime example and to a lesser extent so does Odama and even certain sections of Paper Mario on the GC. F-Zero GX would be another contender of sorts, it had 30 high-detail ships racing at any given time; Dead Rising is in essence an extension of this.

It isn't an advance in gameplay but simply a temporary extension of it that will become outdated as the technology it places it s existance on is replaced. It is actually very similar to a Marxist analysis of society, the ruling classes rely on the very workers that could topple them.

So waht your saying is that techonology never progresses RELATIVE to the demands of mankind.eddy_of_york

Not neccessarily relative to the demands of mankind, but rather the demands of the 'core' gamers. After-all technological progression has exceeded the demands of both the 'lapsed' and 'non-gamers' to the point where they are repulsed by the complexity. Again using the analogy of prog rock, it became so complex and wrought up in its own pomposity of an elite few, for an elite few, that it destroyed itself and made way for the simplicity and visceral nature of punk. Of course whether that was good or not is a matter or musical taste but the principle behind it still applies.

Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.PannicAtack

having better hardware allows software developers to add more to the game.  Not just graphics, but physics, better sound, and such.  If your argument is about art, then better graphics allow an artist's style to be more fully realized without the handicaps of lower resolutions. 

I look back at some of the classic games from 15-20 years ago, and while I remember them with nostalgia, they are generally very basic.  Play FF one then play FF X and you will see not only did the art style substantially improve, but the story telling, the themes, and gameplay were all substantially upgraded.  The NES just didn't have the capacity to provide for all of that.

The next gen isn't just about graphics.  The processing power we have available to us today promotes better physics, AI AND graphics.  This is often forgotten.

I want more complex games where my enemies can employ multiple strategies to try and take me down.  I want racing games where it really feels like i'm driving a super car.  What I do not want is some watered down crap port of an ancient game idea with none of the sparkle this new technology brings.

Try playing Medieval Total War on the Snes TC ;)

having better hardware allows software developers to add more to the game.  Not just graphics, but physics, better sound, and such.  If your argument is about art, then better graphics allow an artist's style to be more fully realized without the handicaps of lower resolutions. 

I look back at some of the classic games from 15-20 years ago, and while I remember them with nostalgia, they are generally very basic.  Play FF one then play FF X and you will see not only did the art style substantially improve, but the story telling, the themes, and gameplay were all substantially upgraded.  The NES just didn't have the capacity to provide for all of that.

sonicare

If the hardware allows for improved physics and the like then why do we still have the recurrent issues of slowdown, of pop-up, of lag, of pre-set destructable environments and of scripted AI? The extra power offered by the latest consoles is used in the wrong way. Also whilst sound quality may be improved that does not mean to say that the compositions and sound effects are good.

Let me give you a little anecdote:

A friend of mine recently purchased a Wii after years in the gaming wilderness, I was shocked at how both he and other non or lapsed gamers are so perceptive of the little details we core gamers seem to ignore. The audio prompts in games was one of the things he was particularly enamoured by, even on the Wii home menu when you move the cursor over a different channel the sound offers a form of aural feedback.

For me the effective use of the given technology and the implementation of this given technology at the right time is far more important than the potential power of a console. In an awful and shameful cliche: 'Its not what you have but how you use it that matters'. If developers use the technology correctly then fine but most simply continue the same practices and just add an extra layer of sheen.

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.TheCrazed420

That may be true, but art style is what makes you notice a game and seperates it from the pack. Photo realistic games may take a while before they start to look bad, but they are more forgettable than wind waker and okami. When you see wind waker you know it's wind waker, when you see okami you know it's okami, but when you see a photo realistic game, it looks like every other photo realistic game because real life only comes in one style.

Of course you can change the mood of photo realism like make it a western, post apocalyptic future, sci fi, or mid-evil times but the people and scenery will always look exactly the same as every other realistic game until the rules for how things look in real life change.

I remember when PS1 came out, how all the critics talked about how this is the first time a videogame had 3D photo realistic graphics, but after the PS2 was released people forgot about almost all of the PS1 launch tittles. Even now with the launch of the PS3, does anyone remember the photo realistic PS2 launch tittles with out having to look it up? Gears of war will be forgotten after gow2 is released, but every one will remember Zelda and Okami in the same way that people remember Zelda:oot and Final Fantasy 7 instead of ..um.... what ever the photo realistic games of the time were.

The Wii is inadequate in relation to the current processing power of its CPU and GPU's, the price at which a suitable console can be mass produced with powerful hardware, and how it benchmarks well below other consoles on the market.  Divorse yourself away from GAMES for a moment; think only of hardware.  Wii relies on developer monopolization and the theft of intellectual property to sell games.  The console itself is scarcely more powerful than a gamecube.  It doesn't matter if the gameplay will be "more fun" for years to come.  Consoles should be judged soley on the power, cost, and functionality of their hardware.FoamingPanda

How can the Wii be inadequate to its own components? Anyway I really do fail to grasp this argument, exactly how is the Wii monopolising the market? By offering an alternative to its competitiors? By offering an outlet for smaller developers who have neither the funds nor the resources to create games on other systems precisely because manufacturers such as Sony are using gaming as a trojan horse to push through their other corporate aspirations? As I said in my previous post, the Wii fulfils all but one criteria on your list. The Wii is placed at a low accessible cost in relation to its competitors, the functionality of the console far surpasses that of its competitiors when you consider the multitude of controller add-ons that could be used to extend gameplay possibilities, add to this the Virtual Console, the News, Forecast, Photo and Mii channels plus the infinite options the Wii Connect 24 service offers.

I would hate for our medium to reach a truly mass audience who views it as a meer toy that has little more to offer than cheap and thought-free entertainment.  You do not see casual gamers embracing the Wii for the reason, "oh wow, I could play games that present all sorts of great ideas and interesting settings."  Instead, they see a little ball they can hit across the screen with one of their friends.  I would rather see gaming die than watch it decline into a simplistic and childish toy.  When almost all of us think of the word "DVD player," we think only of a pile of hardware that processes data; that is the connatation I wish to slap across all consoles and PC's.FoamingPanda

And once again the elitist nature of the self-procliamed 'hardcore' gamers is detrimental to the success of the industry as a whole. Are you stating that you do not want games to be fun? For what is entertainment without the fun? What gives you greater credence to play games over my mother or my grandparents? Just because you are knowledgeable about games (in a conventional sense) it does not give you the right to deny others from exploring the opportunities offered by the medium. Also your view of the gaming world is severely distorted, do you really think that those who do not play games see gaming as a serious and worthwhile hobby? Of course not, they see it as the preserve of socially inept swines and sweaty teenage boys, a frolic in the futile and a severe waste of time. Surely with your utilitarian minset you would understand this perception?

Wii presents minimal advances in processing capability.  Wii relies on an outdated optical format and praises a controller -- which ideally should be little more than a USB device that any console/PC could use if the developer wanted to use it for a game -- as its primary source of innovation.  Examine the hardware of the Wii -- you're getting scarcely more than a gamecube at a marked-up price. Wii serves no function other than playing video games.  The statement you quoted was intended to address consoles at large; most consumers chose their console for access to a certain library of games. What developer need worry about lowering the cost or raising the power of a console when mindless fans will purchase a console for the games released for it?FoamingPanda

I find the level of importance you place on the controller to be vastly out of proportion. What separates video-games from other media? It is the interaction. What is the vessel for this interaction? The controller. The controller is the fundamental link between player and game without it a game ceases to be a game and becomes a film. If altering the umbilical cord between player and game is not a viable form of innovation then I do not know what is. Also in terms of the Wii functionality the Wii exhibits the following advances over its predecessor: the ability to download retro games through the Virtual Console, a multitude of different channels from an Internet Browser, Weather Forecasting, Photo Editing, Mii charicature creation, e-mail, News Service, Parental Controls in addition to upgrades in power. Also that list is not exhaustive but merely what is availiable at present with the Wii Connect 24 function and the malleable nature of the controller we can expect to see much more functions.

You state that the 'Wii serves no function other than playing video games', whilst robustly discarding such a claim in my above post I must also say: if the main focus of a video-games console is not to play video-games then it ceases to become a video-games console and should be judged accordingly.

The function of a console is simply to process data, provide the most functionality, and operate in the most efficent manner possible.  Power consumption and noise level are certainly aspects of efficentcy, but the other superficial functions you might slap across a console are simply not valid.  Software and firmware exist for specific reasons.  Only in this sick and sad industry are games wed to consoles.  No union should exist between games and consoles; they're seperate things and stand away from each other. The Wii benchmarks well below other consoles and numerable improvements could be made to its hardware.  

Sadly, this industry is sick.  You cite things like the interface and controller as if they were a part of the console.  It is sad the industry is so corrupted that console developers monopolize control schemes and developer rights.  DIVORCE THE IDEA OF CONSOLE AND GAMES.  We should never shun or praise a console for the gameplay found in games.  The success or failure of the games a console plays does not matter when we consider the console itself.FoamingPanda

I find it shocking that you want to severe the link between games and consoles when without one the other cannot exist. Are you saying that consoles should not be made with games in mind? In that case it is not a console it is a multi-media device i.e. a jack of all trades and a master of none. Multi-functionality is increasingly important but once you lose sight of the original aim of your machine then it has no purpose, unless of course you like to salivate over a console as it sits processing data.

The interface and controller are part of the console, they are the most fundamental foundation on which a console is based. An interface has various guises: the visual interface- what we see on screen and your main point of reference, the aural interface- the use of sound to provide feedback to the player and most importantly the kinetic interface- the controller or input device that differentiates video-games from all other media.

Games are the property of developers and publishers, nothing more.

We must demand that the gaming industry understands this.  We want the most powerful machine at the lowest price.  Standardize a USB hub on all future consoles, implement DX10 or the most effective progamming language, and use a standard optical drive.FoamingPanda

The marriage of the most poweful technology with the lowest price will never occur. The latest technology is the most expensive and thus can never be readily availiable to the masses, when the technology does become affordable it also ceases to become the most powerful and so the cycle for technological superiority continues indefinitely.

Post of the month.hyruledweller

This topic runs in conjunction with an alternative topic entitled 'The Importance of Art-Style', which can be found here: http://uk.gamespot.com/pages/forums/show_msgs.php?topic_id=25210295&page=0

As I browse through the topics here on System Wars I see one sustained attack on the credibility of the Wii, that is the graphics argument and the attack on the technical specifications of the console in general. I was pondering what it really means for something to be 'cutting-edge' or 'advanced' when a thought dawned upon me: technology never truly progresses.

You may be questioning the significance of the title, after all this topic has nothing to do with RPGs as such, however since this is a gaming forum I thought that an analogy directly relating to games would be the best way to orchestrate my points. As I run through my argument keep the phrase 'technology never truly progresses' in the back of your mind and relate it to each point.

Firstly what are the core gameplay elements of an RPG:

- In most RPGs the main goal regardless of story is to 'level-up', to become stronger as you progress. Shigeru Miyamoto once likened it to being bound by chains/ropes that slowly loosen as you advance into the game. In this respect technology is very similar, as we progress through time the technology becomes more powerful, more advanced and more complex.

-Now consider your position as a character in an RPG in relation to your enemies. You start the game as a weakling with few abilities and attacks, however your enemies are also weak allowing you to defeat them. As you progress you 'level-up', become stronger, learn new attacks, gain new abilities and so forth. Here is the problem: as you become stronger so too do your enemies. This effectively leaves you in the same position as you were at the start, both you and your enemies are of similar strength. It is this false sense of progression evident in RPGs that also manifests itself in technology.

You see, as the capacity of our technology increases so do the demands upon it in addition to the consumer expectations. This is why we still have the same problems of slowdown, pop-up, glitches and 3D 'clipping' to name a few. So whilst hardware may be more powerful, its ability to rectify the recurrent problems is negated due to the additional demands of the software. Just like an RPG we have progression matched equally by the threats to the progression leaving us in the same position we have always been. That is why graphical advancement through technological means is but a transient and short-lived feat, it is through art that graphics can remain on the 'cutting-edge' forever, as great art only becomes better with age; like a fine wine or a stunning composition.

Caviglia

While your post was intriguing and very true about RPGs, the same could be said about any other type of genre.FPS = Shoot, change weapon, shoot, jump, shoot more, dodge, shoot... ad nauseum. Oh, your enemies get stronger? Shotgun not working? How about a rocket launcher or plasma rifle... Same thing.

Platformer : Say you can jump kinda high. Oh no, there's a huge wall. Back track a little while get some ultra boots, and now do a super jump... Super jump doesn't work? Why not try a wall jump you have to use the super jump to get in the first place?

Do I keep going on or do you get the point?

Some of us LIKE RPGs for the story, regardless of the detractors who say more cutscenes than gameplay. Every story that exists has probably been told already. It's just a different coat of paint on it a new car.

Besides, RPG players who are good at their games can outlevel their opponents and make it more of a challenge to see how fast they can stomp an ultra strong monster. It's not like IF you win, it's more like how fast can I win?
SemiMaster

I simply chose RPGs as they are the best example to fit my argument, it is not a critique on the blueprint of RPGs as I do quite enjoy them on the whole.

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]While your post was intriguing and very true about RPGs, the same could be said about any other type of genre.FPS = Shoot, change weapon, shoot, jump, shoot more, dodge, shoot... ad nauseum. Oh, your enemies get stronger? Shotgun not working? How about a rocket launcher or plasma rifle... Same thing.

Platformer : Say you can jump kinda high. Oh no, there's a huge wall. Back track a little while get some ultra boots, and now do a super jump... Super jump doesn't work? Why not try a wall jump you have to use the super jump to get in the first place?

Do I keep going on or do you get the point?

Some of us LIKE RPGs for the story, regardless of the detractors who say more cutscenes than gameplay. Every story that exists has probably been told already. It's just a different coat of paint on it a new car.

Besides, RPG players who are good at their games can outlevel their opponents and make it more of a challenge to see how fast they can stomp an ultra strong monster. It's not like IF you win, it's more like how fast can I win?
Caviglia

I simply chose RPGs as they are the best example to fit my argument, it is not a critique on the blueprint of RPGs as I do quite enjoy them on the whole.

[QUOTE="Caviglia"]

[QUOTE="TheCrazed420"][QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.GabeBlack

It certainly would be daft to disregard photorealism as a credible art-style, however my worry is that we will soon reach the plateaux of graphical photorealism and therefore the art-style will become obsolete. This is because photorealism relies directly on technological power whilst other art-styles are more independent.

The phrase 'If graphics were not an issue we would still be playing [Insert achaic console here]' is just ludicrous. Of course graphics are important and technology should progress, but this progression is becoming smaller and smaller, the differences are becoming minimal. Perhaps there is a trend occuring in relation to graphical advancement:

NES-->SNES/Genesis= Minor leap

SNES/Gensis-->N64/PS1= Great leap

PS1/N64-->PS2/GC/X-Box= Significant leap

PS2/GC/X-Box-->360/PS3/Wii=Minor leap

Maybe the next-gen will bring another revolution in graphics?

Also a truly great art-style makes the most of the hardware regardless of the power, whilst technical grunt can aid in fulfilling the ambitions of artists in regards to certain art-styles (Photorealism for example) we will eventually reach a point when the technological side of the art direction diminishes whilst the aesthetic aspects live on.

[QUOTE="Caviglia"]

[QUOTE="SemiMaster"]While your post was intriguing and very true about RPGs, the same could be said about any other type of genre.FPS = Shoot, change weapon, shoot, jump, shoot more, dodge, shoot... ad nauseum. Oh, your enemies get stronger? Shotgun not working? How about a rocket launcher or plasma rifle... Same thing.

Platformer : Say you can jump kinda high. Oh no, there's a huge wall. Back track a little while get some ultra boots, and now do a super jump... Super jump doesn't work? Why not try a wall jump you have to use the super jump to get in the first place?

Do I keep going on or do you get the point?

Some of us LIKE RPGs for the story, regardless of the detractors who say more cutscenes than gameplay. Every story that exists has probably been told already. It's just a different coat of paint on it a new car.

Besides, RPG players who are good at their games can outlevel their opponents and make it more of a challenge to see how fast they can stomp an ultra strong monster. It's not like IF you win, it's more like how fast can I win?
SemiMaster

I simply chose RPGs as they are the best example to fit my argument, it is not a critique on the blueprint of RPGs as I do quite enjoy them on the whole.

Making a new genre is difficult but completely revitalising a genre is much easier if you have the guts to innovate. Take Madden on the Wii for example, it took the ageing template of the American football genre and injected it with a whole new lease of life at once retaining the fundamentals whilst drastically altering the experience and in doing so placated the gaming conservatives and attracted a new audience to the genre. I for one wouldn't dream of playing Madden, Tiger Woods, Fifa et cetera on my old consoles but this new gameplay has at least led me to consider purchase.

Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.PannicAtack

[QUOTE="PannicAtack"]Ten years from now, Crysis, MGS4, and possibly Gears of War will look like crap. Games like Okami and Wind Waker will look good for a much longer time.beldugo

That is not true at all, some of the most artistically stimulating games of recent times are the 'Bit Generations' series of games on the GBA which rarely exert anything more complicated than a coloured pixel on a black background. For me FFVII is an example of bad art-direction as the ambitions of the developer were unmatched by the capability of the hardware. Truly great art-direction makes the most of the hardware. Looking back now at something like FFVII, the cut-scenes look absolutely grotesque yet at the time these graphics were falsely claimed by many to be the actual power of the Playstation and people bought it for the quick-fix, thrill or being more advanced (or rather the illusion of being more advanced).

Another example to defunct the 'Power>Art' argument would be Electroplankton for the DS, again it is realitvely simply in terms of graphics but the subtle nuances of colour that intermingle with the sounds show that it is the fusion of all the interfaces that makes a game truly great not just the dominance of graphics. If Power>Art then why are so few games as artistically stunning as Yoshi's Island, or why has the 360 yet to match the creativity of Viewtiful Joe? Power is not greater than art, it is what you do with the availiable power, whatever the amount, that decides the worth of a piece of art. 

Very good post and I agree with most of your points. That's why I personally believe certain games, like Okami and Killer 7 will still look great in 10 years or so thanks to their artistic qualities, while Halo, which is a great game, may not look so great after a decade.glitchgeeman