Two days ago, Microsoft finally unveiled their next in their line of home consoles, Xbox One.
While we can officially add it to the list of “most baffling console nomenclature” along with the Wii U, there’s far more to raise an eyebrow at with this new console. Details are still sparse, but from what we know the system will be slightly less capable in terms of raw processing power than the PS4. That’s not much of an issue for me, especially considering that in terms of architecture both consoles seem have far more parity than the Xbox 360 did compared to PS3. At the very least, we can probably expect both consoles to have games performing quite similarly.
Perhaps the least surprising thing Microsoft focused on was the entertainment angle of the new console. The majority of the conference was taken up discussing Xbox One’s TV features, as well as it’s almost instantaneous application switching. From the demo shown, users should be able to flip between TV, games, music, and more, with just a quick phase to your Kinect.
Youtuber Darkbeatdk’s above highlights clip is a rather apt summary of the system’s reveal. These features were admittedly cool, but for many gamers the focus on TV and entertainment was disheartening. I do share in the sentiment that there was a lack of games shown, and that the three shown off (Quantum Leap, Forza, and Call of Duty: Ghosts) weren’t big surprises. However, prior to the conference (and throughout it, as well) Microsoft has assured gamers that E3 will be the place for games, and I look forward to seeing what they’re bringing to the Xbox One.
That said, there are some things that leave me worried; namely, the inability for Indie developers to self-publish on the system — something both Sony and Nintendo allow. As a gamer increasingly interested in smaller, creative projects, I was disheartened to learn that Microsoft was not embracing this section of the game-development world. Similarly, though I’m not entirely opposed to owning a system that must stay connected to the internet, I did find Microsoft’s vagueness on the subject confusing, to say the least. It seems even Microsoft is unsure about what exactly they’ll be requiring from consumers’ internet connections.
Going into this reveal, I didn’t have many expectations, but I did hope I’d leave it with a modicum of the interest I felt after Sony’s PS4 reveal earlier this year (even though I’m not entirely sold on the PS4, either). Instead, I felt like I had just watched every rumor about the new console come true. What we saw was a company on top making investments in for-sure things: the biggest AAA games; television and movie streaming; NFL and sports apps; and voice-recognition/gesture controls. I’ll be honest, I’m a sucker for Halo and that franchise alone could sell a console to me. It also wouldn’t be hard for Microsoft to win me, and many other gamers, over this E3 but giving us a good look at some of the promised 15 exclusive games coming in Xbox One’s first year. But it’s not all about games anymore, and truth be told, I kinda like the media-hub idea they’re pushing for this new system. It’s a smart move. As many writers have pointed out, the gaming console as we know it is dead, so companies need to widen their net if they want to survive. If we still want the living-room experience, Xbox One and PS4 are really our only bets.
The PS4 is real; it’s powerful, it’s innovative, and easy to use for both developers and consumers, and we’ll be playing it this Holiday season.
But most importantly, we saw games. New game, new IP. Sure, there were sequels, but there were so many amazing looking announcements. I’m still processing and decompressing — that was a solid 2 hours of impressive footage and exciting ideas. I don’t want to over-hype it, but the system sounds impressive. It ‘s seems like a truly next-gen machine, and Sony has clearly made some important partnerships. There are still questions — most notably price, exact release date, and form factor — but we also got a bunch of great things to look forward to.
I wonder what Microsoft will do. But right now, I’m just very happy about what we saw. The developers showing off their games, and talking about how easy to use the hardware is were really good to hear. I’m just very pleased with what we saw. I’m excited for E3 and getting more info because right now, I can see myself owning a PS4 and getting a lot of use out of it. I may even buy a Vita.
“Next gen,” two little words that make me tense up and feel overwhelmed. Why? Simply put, I’m not ready for it, nor am I remotely excited by the prospect of a new set of consoles.
Some of you may feel exactly the opposite, and I can see why: new leaps in graphical abilities; better AI; sleeker hardware, UI, and control schemes. But I don’t really want any of that. What I want is new experiences, new ideas — even new genres or takes on existing ones — from the games themselves, not the hardware. But the big gaming publishers don’t seems to see it that way.
It seems like the biggest driving force behind the next-gen push (and really any console iteration leap) is graphics. Recently, 2K games president Cristoph Hartman said that the industry can’t hope to evoke any sort of real, honest emotion until games achieve “photo realism.” He cites Brokeback Mountain as his example of the type of emotions games could create, but haven’t yet. To make matters worse, Crytek, developers of the graphically-powerful Crysis series, made a statement claiming that the current generation’s graphical capabilities have been tapped, which somehow means we need to move on to the next set of hardware…
Bullshit, I say. Not to the graphical capabilities being maxed, I’m pretty sure that’s true. But the part that makes me roll my eyes is this notion that graphics are immediately tied to the level of emotion response and entertainment value we get out of games. This is absolutely and unequivocally false. Let’s look at this past generation — one where graphics have been venerated above all else as the major draw to gaming. Off the top of my head, the one genre that has succeed this generation is the military FPS — the “bro-shooter”. These games had mountains of cash pumped into their graphics engines to create as “realistic” an experience as possible. The result? Stagnate, same-y shooters caked in a veneer of brown textures and lens flares. I’m not knocking these games, I’m sure there have been some great titles, but I never touched them because they never looked appealing. Call of Duty, Battlefield, Medal of Honor, Spec Ops, Killzone, Resistance… even games like Gears of War could be thrown into the mix. Show me a screenshot from one of these “realistic” looking games, and I probably couldn’t tell you which was which. Then again, I could easily point out games like Enslaved, Borderlands, Tribes: Ascend — even Uncharted and Halo, due to their own unique looks and art styles.
The problem is, the people saying graphics sell games have a point: when it comes to the (rather large) percentage of gamers who only buy 2-3 games a year, and usually only from the same franchises (Madden, Call of Duty, etc.), graphics matter big time. Being the first thing they see is a screenshot or trailer, this crowd needs to see marked improvements from one year to the next in order to be sold. I don’t mean to generalize, but just take a look at the comment section on Youtube or gaming blogs. You’ll find fanboys and shooter-bros writing off games entirely just because another titles graphics are “better.” So, to a point, 2k games and Crytek are correct: in order to continue pandering to this section of the market, we need to hurry up and jump on board with the next consoles. But not really because that’d be silly.
I’m gonna take a quick tangent to touch on development costs before I return to Hartmans’s rivitingly asinine remarks about photo-realism and emotion.
Games cost a lot; AAA games cost even more. Those graphics engines I talked about earlier require millions of dollars. In an effort to keep up with the likes of EA and Activision’s massive budgets for their annualized franchises, smaller companies are forced to pony up stacks of cash to even hope to compete. We witnessed this with 38 Studio’s Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckonning. Curt Schillingborrowed money from Rhode Island in order to complete the game. The game sold very well, over 410 thousand copies in the U.S., but the Governor of Rhode Island felt that wasn’t enough, calling the game a “failure” for not selling a projected 3 million copies (a rather unrealistic number for a small, niche title). Due to this and number of other internal scandals, 38 dissolved. Now, THQ faces a similar fate, their fate in the hands of gamers who buy games like Darksiders 2. EA hopes to see Dead Space 3 sell over 5 million copies, despite the past games not selling anything near those numbers. Now imagine a game with wildly experimental gameplay and presentation, but whose developers need to sell 5 million copies to see a profit. As Minecraft creator Notch said in response to Hartman’s statement, “you limit the number of new genres if you focus on photorealism.” Experimentation and creativity are always diminished in favor of sure-things.
For instance, at E3 we saw Dead Space 3 paraded about as a bro-shooter. For fans of the series, this was infuriating. We saw the same happen with Mass Effect 3. It turned out that both of these first impressions were false, but it underscores a major problem in the industry.Companies want to compete; they want to have the flashy high-fidelity graphics, fast-paced action gameplay, and huge set pieces to draw in the CoD crowd. But in doing so, they alienate the core audiences. Spending too much money on graphics and homogenizing your gameplay is a dumb thing to do. And what’s more, it’s entirely unnecessary.
Okay sure, I’ll admit, I am enamored with beautiful graphics as much as the next guy At E3, I was awed by the Crysis 3 demo; Watch Dog‘s animations made me giddy, and the things Unreal Engine 4 can do are mind blowing. But when I think back to the games that really made an imprint on me, it wasn’t because the looks “real,” it was because they looked unique.
I have several games in my library I hold up as having impeccable art direction. And with most of those games, my emotional connection to the experiences and stories within are stronger because they captured my imagination and creativity. I don’t need to say it for the dozenth time, but Dead Space, Rayman: Origins, Dark Souls, The Legend of Zelda, and Shadow of the Colossus enraptured me with their beauty and atmosphere.
Much like a Pixar movie, videogames that feature highly stilized visuals have been the ones I not only remember best, but have the strongest connection with. Super Metroid’s archaic sprite-based graphics still instill the feelings of exploration and isolation I had the first time I played it. And even though they looks like ass today, games like Medieval, and th N64 Zelda games have a charm that few games of this generation ever achieved.
But it would be false to say that every emotional experience I’ve ever had with a game was due to creative or memorable art design. No, the single most memorable and impactful part of any and every game is its gameplay.
For me, videogames are game design first, and stories/visuals/music/etc. second (if not further down the list). They’re not movies, not comics. They are unique in the way they allow for entirely different types of stories and interactions to occur. I’ve harped on it before, but games need to chill the fuck out with this whole “imitating cinema” thing. There have been some truly moving stories told in videogames, but if you can’t present them in way that allows me to PLAY THE GAME, then your game has failed. Heavy Rain is a perfect example of a game that, truly, would be better suited as a movie. I’m a big proponent of the silent protagonist as it allows for the player to connect directly to the world and story, rather than act as puppeteer or pilot guiding a pre-made character down a pre-determined path. But for every Gordon Freeman, there’s a Jon Marston. On the flipside, for every Samus Aran there’s a…. Samus Aran. My point is, games should not be about narrative archs or photo realistic visuals — that’s cinema’s game. No, games are about gameplay and interactivity. We need to remember that.
I don’t need a new generation of consoles. I’m perfectly content with what my Xbox 360 and PC can do. I still feel there is life in this generation, if for no other reason than indie/retro development. I don’t care how flashy the next big shooters look. Hell, despite my excitement for Darksiders 2 and Halo 4 (games with stylized visuals that put emphasis on gameplay, mind you) it’s titles like Hawken, Ultima Forever, and the Baldur’s Gate re-release that have me really excited. I’m even excited at the fact that games are still coming out for the Dreamcast.
And like I said, there are plenty of great games still to come on the Xbox 360 for the next year or so, if not longer. And despite my aversion to talk of new consoles, the OUYA has me very, very excited about the future of game development, Free 2 Play games, and indie games. So perhaps there is one new console I’m excited for.
I guess what I’m trying to say is this: I love F2P, indie, and retro gaming, and love the types of games still coming out for these “dated” systems, not because of their graphics, but because of their gameplay. I still love AAA console games, but based on the recent climate of that development scene, I worry about the future of companies like THQ, Square-Enix, Sega, and Even Nintendo and Sony. And while I will always have a place in my heart and on my shelf for the next big Bethesda and Bungie games, they’ve become secondary to the far cheaper, and far more engrossing titles from companies like Mojang, Double Fine, Supergiant, The Behemoth, Frictional Games, and dozens more. My only hope is that I’m not alone in thinking that.