Friday, September 16, 2005
Revolution: 17 Hours Later
My mind is focused, the pressure if off, and I am finally ready to type a coherent post about the most important news in gaming I can ever remember. Last night I was overwhelmed with the shocking news of the Revolution controller and could merely spew out ideas for how this could potentially change genres we have already been playing for years. Clearly, I missed the point entirely. This is, after all, a Revolution. One does not attempt to overthrow the king only to reinstate a similar tyrant. Nintendo is trying to change the face of gaming forever. For that we should be both pleased and very fearful.
The first thought I had last night after IGN finally posted a picture of this most elusive controller was, to use an internet acronym, "WTF." Though the final design incorporates many of the ideas people have been hypothesizing since news of a revolutionary control device were first revealed, I honestly never thought Nintendo would go against the grain quite so strongly. You have to admit, Nintendo unquestionably has some gigantic balls to attempt something like this. It's not often you see a billion dollar company defy every conventional idea and offer something never before seen to a confused public. Nintendo could have easily made a Gamecube 2, tweaked the Gamecube controller slightly, and raked in the money. Don't forget, just because Nintendo is currently behind both its competitors they still make a ton of money each year. There is no reason Nintendo needed to change things quite so severely.
That nugget of information is what gives me the most hope that this thing will turn out to be something special. Nintendo is not one to gamble its fortunes on a product it doesn't think will succeed. The Virtual Boy, the only system Nintendo has released that wasn't met with open arms, was an experiment more than a bona fide entry. Though it bombed horribly Nintendo was not damaged in any monetary way. Clearly, if they release a console, a system that will be their lifeblood for at least five years, they have to be confident it can be a viable machine in a crowded marketplace. Now you can understand why I am optimistic even though I honestly have no idea how this will make gaming more fun.
So you're telling me the controller is small?
First of all, I have to look at this from Nintendo's perspective. They have released four consoles and three (relevant) handhelds in their time. Basically, every game released on those systems can be broken down into three categories: 2D, 3D and DS. Aside from DS games, which are still in their infancy, there are hundreds of titles in the first two categories. While technology has gotten more powerful and genres have been created or modified, the games are, for all intents and purposed, very similar to one another. Though the games themselves are quite different, the actual action on screen in Katamari Damacy and Splinter Cell are quite similar. Just like R-Type and Lost Vikings have more in common than they have apart.
The first huge leap in gaming came between the Atari 2600 and the NES. Games went from single screen affairs where beating your high score is the ultimate goal, to scrolling adventures with endings. From there games improved with technology, but were virtually unchanged until 3D became standard. So, there were a couple generations of primitive gaming, two generations of 2D gaming, and now two generations of 3D gaming. With the Revolution, we are entering whatever the next generation of gaming will be known as.
What is most difficult for me to understand is how this paramount shift will change the games I love. Even though I complain a lot, if I didn't love the industry I wouldn't write about it. I wouldn't own every system and play my DS every spare minute I have. Games are fantastic right now and are only getting better. Why is there a need to shift to something completely different when games are still improving? Why try something new when the old thing hasn't even been perfected yet? Does Nintendo believe Super Mario Sunshine is the pinnacle of platformers? Why not try one more round of conventional gaming to see just how far you can push current standards?
You broke it already!?
On the other hand I do complain about gaming a lot. I was completely disenfranchised with the industry as a whole after attending E3. I hate the excess amounts of violence and sex in games. I hate how games are thugged up now. I hate the hyper-realism. I hate sequels. I hate "Blank Killers." I hate companies merely trying to top one another instead of trying to create something new. I hate that graphics are the most important thing to people. I hate that Perfect Dark Zero was mercilessly ripped because the graphics didn't look "next-gen" enough. I hate that people waited in line 3 hours to see video footage of the PS3. I hate that there is debate about whether the trailers shown were in-game or not. I hate delays. I hate hype. Essentially, I hate the direction games are going.
The Revolution is going to completely change everything. While some people, including me, have tried to imagine how this controller can improve existing genres, I don't think that is the point. Just like Kirby Canvas Curse, which I will write about in-depth some day, is only a platformer because it doesn't fit into any other genre, I expect many Revolution titles to make existing genres almost unrecognizable. Yes, we may not be able to play Super Mario like we always have, but isn't that the point? People complain that Nintendo merely releases updates to their games and fans go crazy. They complain that the new Zelda is merely Wind Waker with a new skin. I disagree to an extent, but the differences between Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are almost nonexistent. Why keep marginally improving games when you can create games no one has ever conceived of before?
I do have a number of concerns, though. I worry, first and foremost, that Nintendo is pushing this too hard towards the casual and non-games. I am not sure they will release forty hour adventure games. I just don't think games will ultimately be complex enough to reward diligent gamers who put in hours learning intricacies of the game. I worry that the control will be too tiring to manage for long periods of time. I worry that third party support, which has been dwindling for the past decade, will cease to exist.
I wish I had four hands...
Furthermore, I think the attachment idea is out and out bad. Just like I am furious with Microsoft for segmenting their user base before release (which is November 22 if you cared), I am mad that Nintendo is planning the same thing. Sure, the analog attachment will be packaged with the system, but what about the quirky ones they haven't announced yet? And how much will they cost? If there is an add-on for Mario Kart will all of your friends have to buy that add-on as well to enjoy the four player goodness? I assume the system will be significantly cheaper than the competition, I expect it to be $200 like every other newly released Nintendo system, but if they nickel and dime us with peripherals it could end being even more expensive.
Yesterday, they mentioned, though you can use your old GC controller to play SNES and N64 games, they will most likely release a peripheral add-on for those as well. How ridiculous is that? I'm trying to get my hands on one of those 2D GC pads now so I can enjoy an emulated Super Mario Kart without breaking my fingers on the GC D-Pad or shelling out more cash for an add-on. This is the most pressing issue right now. Nintendo has been known to be quite greedy in the past, I sure hope they don't take advantage now.
To sum up my feelings, I am optimistic right now, though only because this is Nintendo. I remember writing column after column dismissing the Nintendo DS as a simple gimmick. Now that there are games that actually take advantage of its features I can see that Nintendo was right all along. Hopefully the Revolution software will prove all the naysayers wrong. If not, expect the virtual arms race between Sony and MS to escalate until graphics can't improve anymore. And then...
The first thought I had last night after IGN finally posted a picture of this most elusive controller was, to use an internet acronym, "WTF." Though the final design incorporates many of the ideas people have been hypothesizing since news of a revolutionary control device were first revealed, I honestly never thought Nintendo would go against the grain quite so strongly. You have to admit, Nintendo unquestionably has some gigantic balls to attempt something like this. It's not often you see a billion dollar company defy every conventional idea and offer something never before seen to a confused public. Nintendo could have easily made a Gamecube 2, tweaked the Gamecube controller slightly, and raked in the money. Don't forget, just because Nintendo is currently behind both its competitors they still make a ton of money each year. There is no reason Nintendo needed to change things quite so severely.
That nugget of information is what gives me the most hope that this thing will turn out to be something special. Nintendo is not one to gamble its fortunes on a product it doesn't think will succeed. The Virtual Boy, the only system Nintendo has released that wasn't met with open arms, was an experiment more than a bona fide entry. Though it bombed horribly Nintendo was not damaged in any monetary way. Clearly, if they release a console, a system that will be their lifeblood for at least five years, they have to be confident it can be a viable machine in a crowded marketplace. Now you can understand why I am optimistic even though I honestly have no idea how this will make gaming more fun.
So you're telling me the controller is small?
First of all, I have to look at this from Nintendo's perspective. They have released four consoles and three (relevant) handhelds in their time. Basically, every game released on those systems can be broken down into three categories: 2D, 3D and DS. Aside from DS games, which are still in their infancy, there are hundreds of titles in the first two categories. While technology has gotten more powerful and genres have been created or modified, the games are, for all intents and purposed, very similar to one another. Though the games themselves are quite different, the actual action on screen in Katamari Damacy and Splinter Cell are quite similar. Just like R-Type and Lost Vikings have more in common than they have apart.
The first huge leap in gaming came between the Atari 2600 and the NES. Games went from single screen affairs where beating your high score is the ultimate goal, to scrolling adventures with endings. From there games improved with technology, but were virtually unchanged until 3D became standard. So, there were a couple generations of primitive gaming, two generations of 2D gaming, and now two generations of 3D gaming. With the Revolution, we are entering whatever the next generation of gaming will be known as.
What is most difficult for me to understand is how this paramount shift will change the games I love. Even though I complain a lot, if I didn't love the industry I wouldn't write about it. I wouldn't own every system and play my DS every spare minute I have. Games are fantastic right now and are only getting better. Why is there a need to shift to something completely different when games are still improving? Why try something new when the old thing hasn't even been perfected yet? Does Nintendo believe Super Mario Sunshine is the pinnacle of platformers? Why not try one more round of conventional gaming to see just how far you can push current standards?
You broke it already!?
On the other hand I do complain about gaming a lot. I was completely disenfranchised with the industry as a whole after attending E3. I hate the excess amounts of violence and sex in games. I hate how games are thugged up now. I hate the hyper-realism. I hate sequels. I hate "Blank Killers." I hate companies merely trying to top one another instead of trying to create something new. I hate that graphics are the most important thing to people. I hate that Perfect Dark Zero was mercilessly ripped because the graphics didn't look "next-gen" enough. I hate that people waited in line 3 hours to see video footage of the PS3. I hate that there is debate about whether the trailers shown were in-game or not. I hate delays. I hate hype. Essentially, I hate the direction games are going.
The Revolution is going to completely change everything. While some people, including me, have tried to imagine how this controller can improve existing genres, I don't think that is the point. Just like Kirby Canvas Curse, which I will write about in-depth some day, is only a platformer because it doesn't fit into any other genre, I expect many Revolution titles to make existing genres almost unrecognizable. Yes, we may not be able to play Super Mario like we always have, but isn't that the point? People complain that Nintendo merely releases updates to their games and fans go crazy. They complain that the new Zelda is merely Wind Waker with a new skin. I disagree to an extent, but the differences between Metroid Prime 1 and 2 are almost nonexistent. Why keep marginally improving games when you can create games no one has ever conceived of before?
I do have a number of concerns, though. I worry, first and foremost, that Nintendo is pushing this too hard towards the casual and non-games. I am not sure they will release forty hour adventure games. I just don't think games will ultimately be complex enough to reward diligent gamers who put in hours learning intricacies of the game. I worry that the control will be too tiring to manage for long periods of time. I worry that third party support, which has been dwindling for the past decade, will cease to exist.
I wish I had four hands...
Furthermore, I think the attachment idea is out and out bad. Just like I am furious with Microsoft for segmenting their user base before release (which is November 22 if you cared), I am mad that Nintendo is planning the same thing. Sure, the analog attachment will be packaged with the system, but what about the quirky ones they haven't announced yet? And how much will they cost? If there is an add-on for Mario Kart will all of your friends have to buy that add-on as well to enjoy the four player goodness? I assume the system will be significantly cheaper than the competition, I expect it to be $200 like every other newly released Nintendo system, but if they nickel and dime us with peripherals it could end being even more expensive.
Yesterday, they mentioned, though you can use your old GC controller to play SNES and N64 games, they will most likely release a peripheral add-on for those as well. How ridiculous is that? I'm trying to get my hands on one of those 2D GC pads now so I can enjoy an emulated Super Mario Kart without breaking my fingers on the GC D-Pad or shelling out more cash for an add-on. This is the most pressing issue right now. Nintendo has been known to be quite greedy in the past, I sure hope they don't take advantage now.
To sum up my feelings, I am optimistic right now, though only because this is Nintendo. I remember writing column after column dismissing the Nintendo DS as a simple gimmick. Now that there are games that actually take advantage of its features I can see that Nintendo was right all along. Hopefully the Revolution software will prove all the naysayers wrong. If not, expect the virtual arms race between Sony and MS to escalate until graphics can't improve anymore. And then...
// posted by Tom @ 12:18 PM 
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]