-
Hey Guest. Check out your NeoGAF Wrapped 2025 results here!
Will Next Console's Innovate? Or More of the Same?
- Thread starter RyanReedyMusic
- Start date
Felix Lighter
Member
Give me the most precise and comfortable controls possible and let the software developers innovate.
It is not an either/or situation. A controller can have more buttons and have the split design of motion controllers. There are many games that performed MUCH better on the Wiimote than DA. Hell, there was a debate not too long ago in this very forum about the Wiimote breaking RE4 because it removed all the limitations of a standard controller. It is a far more comfortable set up, it has far greater potential than DA, so why would you actually want to throw all of this away?
The reason why I said the NES pad is because of the perception of the analogue stick during its debut, can you guess what people said about it?
Call Me Maybe
Banned
It depends, what do you mean by 'will they innovate?'
Do you mean innovation in terms of control methods? Because honestly, there is no real innovation left there, not before the advent of VR. At best, I see companies taking on pre existing concepts (such as motion gaming/touch screens/camera+microphone/full body scanning/AR/traditional control schemes), and improving on them. This is in fact something we have seen even with Nintendo's newer devices, and Nintendo is always supposed to be 'innovating' with its control schemes, isn't it?
Do you mean innovation in terms of online connectivity? Then yes, I see some rather novel new things coming up. Steam's foray into console gaming, Microsoft's presumed reinvention of Xbox Live for the next generation, Sony's (hopeful) continued attempts to stay ahead of XBL with stuff like PSN+, and even Nintendo, with Miiverse, are already pushing the envelope as far as online connectivity for gaming devices is concerned.
Did you mean innovation in terms of content delivery methods? Because I don't think there is much scope for that. Digital is now a viable method of content delivery, and has begun to coexist alongside retail. We will probably see improvements in digital game delivery (better prices, more concessions like artwork and soundtracks, more sales, better DRM, especially from Nintendo, I hope, and so on), but that's about it. Digital will never <em>kill</em> retail, just like eBooks didn't kill off traditional books. I do see streaming catching on as a method of content delivery by the end of the generation though, especially for the next Xbox.
Does that answer your question?
Do you mean innovation in terms of control methods? Because honestly, there is no real innovation left there, not before the advent of VR. At best, I see companies taking on pre existing concepts (such as motion gaming/touch screens/camera+microphone/full body scanning/AR/traditional control schemes), and improving on them. This is in fact something we have seen even with Nintendo's newer devices, and Nintendo is always supposed to be 'innovating' with its control schemes, isn't it?
Do you mean innovation in terms of online connectivity? Then yes, I see some rather novel new things coming up. Steam's foray into console gaming, Microsoft's presumed reinvention of Xbox Live for the next generation, Sony's (hopeful) continued attempts to stay ahead of XBL with stuff like PSN+, and even Nintendo, with Miiverse, are already pushing the envelope as far as online connectivity for gaming devices is concerned.
Did you mean innovation in terms of content delivery methods? Because I don't think there is much scope for that. Digital is now a viable method of content delivery, and has begun to coexist alongside retail. We will probably see improvements in digital game delivery (better prices, more concessions like artwork and soundtracks, more sales, better DRM, especially from Nintendo, I hope, and so on), but that's about it. Digital will never <em>kill</em> retail, just like eBooks didn't kill off traditional books. I do see streaming catching on as a method of content delivery by the end of the generation though, especially for the next Xbox.
Does that answer your question?
Because it doesn't work as well. You're using RE4 as an example, a 3rd person shooter that by today's shooter's standards controls horribly and is extremely stiff. Wiimote does that game better because of the pointing like I said, but just about every other thing is controlled by a button on the Wiimote. It has "greater" potential in 1 small aspect of an overall video game.
Arondight
Member
For controllers, While I can see tablet controllers in next gen, they're hardly going to be heavily integrated into a system. More GUI/UI stuff and not much actual gameplay involved. I still think Motion controllers are the way to go. What really caught me eye was the move racing controller.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3mtQrcACS0
Granted it looks kind of ugly but there's potential in it. They could refine it and make it much more comfortable. Maybe even add analog sticks as well and really wouldn't be surprised if Sony included this in their next console. They could even completely redesign the move just to back away from the lack of success of the move and label it has something completely different.
As for traditional controllers, I think they still have their place but they aren't going to be a heavy focus. They'll most likely be an option for core gamers much like what WiiU did with it's controllers
For screens, I think Oculus has a little potential and I really look forward to it though it'll be the support from consoles and developers that will decide it's future. Project Shield screams to me of a misguided idea. I'll eat my own words if it succeeds though.
Overall, I think the Consoles themselves have provided enough innovation when it comes to controls, it just needs a lot of refinement. Especially when it comes to touch and motion controllers. I personally think that traditional controllers are really the wrong way to go as a focus because it's already hit a brick wall in it's potential.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e3mtQrcACS0
Granted it looks kind of ugly but there's potential in it. They could refine it and make it much more comfortable. Maybe even add analog sticks as well and really wouldn't be surprised if Sony included this in their next console. They could even completely redesign the move just to back away from the lack of success of the move and label it has something completely different.
As for traditional controllers, I think they still have their place but they aren't going to be a heavy focus. They'll most likely be an option for core gamers much like what WiiU did with it's controllers
For screens, I think Oculus has a little potential and I really look forward to it though it'll be the support from consoles and developers that will decide it's future. Project Shield screams to me of a misguided idea. I'll eat my own words if it succeeds though.
Overall, I think the Consoles themselves have provided enough innovation when it comes to controls, it just needs a lot of refinement. Especially when it comes to touch and motion controllers. I personally think that traditional controllers are really the wrong way to go as a focus because it's already hit a brick wall in it's potential.
I don't understand why people seem to think that the only innovation next gen consoles can have is on a hardware front.
They don't need a gimmicky controller to be innovative, would people actually argue that the 360 and PS3 aren't big innovational leaps over their predecessors?
If Microsoft and Sony can easily do some cool things with the console level software that would improve gameplay experiences. I mean look at the Wii U, the gamepad has yet to really be used in an effective way, but Miiverse is bloody fantastic! At the moment Miiverse is significantly more innovative in actual implementation than the controller is.
They don't need a gimmicky controller to be innovative, would people actually argue that the 360 and PS3 aren't big innovational leaps over their predecessors?
If Microsoft and Sony can easily do some cool things with the console level software that would improve gameplay experiences. I mean look at the Wii U, the gamepad has yet to really be used in an effective way, but Miiverse is bloody fantastic! At the moment Miiverse is significantly more innovative in actual implementation than the controller is.
Have you ever considered why that one feature works so well though? because it requires subtle movements, it measures the degree of your movements, and it offers amazing precision. In other words, it is the truest form of motion controls. Imagine if you can have that kind of fidelity in the entire 3D space and in both hands. Games like Boom Blox, Skyward Sword, hell even Wii Sports resort are steps in the right direction, but they are not there yet, they are not the pinnacle of this control scheme.
Furthermore, even if it is better on one aspect, that is more than enough to see how to develop this idea further. After all, Analogue sticks are only better for camera control and movements right?
Buttons are not against motion controls. The Wiimote was designed in that fashion to attract newer markets, doesn't mean there isn't any room for improvements.
FYI, RE4 Wii controls better than any RE to date.
Its just something that stuck in the beginning of the Wii era. Its the same misconception as Gameplay VS. Graphics. Very few people realize that graphics are a part of the gameplay and are not an opposing element of game design.
If we're talking strictly inferring stuff from hardware rumours, I think Microsoft has the most potential, but it will be the 3rd parties that have to bring it out.
When I think of Kinect, and Kinect 2.0 moreso, all I see in untapped potential. Not just for silly, gimmicky movement inputs, but detecting mood and relaxation levels from sitting positions to create interactive experiences like Journey and whatnot, voice commands to increase efficiency where it takes more than a few button presses, creating 3D dioramas in your living room for RTSs, UIs that adapt to the growing library of voice commands etc. It just saddens me everyone, including MS themselves is only considering gimmicky implementations, giving Kinect the bad rap it has, when there is so much potential in the technology.
Sony is all on that cloud computing tip and western ISPs are not ready for that yet.
When I think of Kinect, and Kinect 2.0 moreso, all I see in untapped potential. Not just for silly, gimmicky movement inputs, but detecting mood and relaxation levels from sitting positions to create interactive experiences like Journey and whatnot, voice commands to increase efficiency where it takes more than a few button presses, creating 3D dioramas in your living room for RTSs, UIs that adapt to the growing library of voice commands etc. It just saddens me everyone, including MS themselves is only considering gimmicky implementations, giving Kinect the bad rap it has, when there is so much potential in the technology.
Sony is all on that cloud computing tip and western ISPs are not ready for that yet.
Hard to argue with this, too.
Lord Error
Insane For Sony
I want more power and innovation. I hope that's not too much to ask. I can't wait to try Oculus. I really hope the crazy rumor about PS4 coming with a semi-transparent AR glasses is true, even if the console needs to made a bit weaker because of that.
Mr.Squirrel
Tom
I want it to be just like this gen but totally different!
RyanReedyMusic
Banned
I dont think power, graphics, are enough. I think its more based on being innovative in the way you control the games and how they are presented such as VR, AR.
If we get more of the same viewing experience with just better graphics and such. Thats not even close to enough.
How many years have we been gaming on a flat screen or surface?
When is it time to change?
If we get more of the same viewing experience with just better graphics and such. Thats not even close to enough.
How many years have we been gaming on a flat screen or surface?
When is it time to change?
Christberg
Member
Most likely more of the same, with even more focus out on making them into glorified HTPCs.
The extra hardware juice could be used for better AI or terrain deformation but I don't see either of these adding much in terms of noteworthy gameplay options at this time. At this point, nobody's demonstrated anything that extra power would actually do to make modern games significantly better. Until I see it realized it's PC for my "big box" gaming and Wii U for everything else.
The extra hardware juice could be used for better AI or terrain deformation but I don't see either of these adding much in terms of noteworthy gameplay options at this time. At this point, nobody's demonstrated anything that extra power would actually do to make modern games significantly better. Until I see it realized it's PC for my "big box" gaming and Wii U for everything else.
SneakyStephan
Banned
Marketing school or something op?
I hope they don't waste everyone's time with crappy gimmicks again.
All I want is hardware with no bottlenecks, powerful enough to allow for larger worlds and more gameplay mechanics (physics, persistence, size etc) and without awful drawbacks like poor IQ/low framerates/texture pop in/long load times and other immersion breaking crap.
A decently sized hard drive for installing games, plenty of connections to connect amps/tv/internet/external HDD to.
Good build quality, for the cooling to be adequate so the system can be quiet, and a well built controller with a good d pad and buttons with good tactile feedback.
Oh and no bullshit like xbox live fees or other moneygrabbing fanbase insulting practices.
Again, I think all they should be aiming for is as little compromise as possible, high build quality, great responsiveness and tactile feedback. These things are what made the best games great, when the hardware allowed for them.
I hope they don't waste everyone's time with crappy gimmicks again.
All I want is hardware with no bottlenecks, powerful enough to allow for larger worlds and more gameplay mechanics (physics, persistence, size etc) and without awful drawbacks like poor IQ/low framerates/texture pop in/long load times and other immersion breaking crap.
A decently sized hard drive for installing games, plenty of connections to connect amps/tv/internet/external HDD to.
Good build quality, for the cooling to be adequate so the system can be quiet, and a well built controller with a good d pad and buttons with good tactile feedback.
Oh and no bullshit like xbox live fees or other moneygrabbing fanbase insulting practices.
Again, I think all they should be aiming for is as little compromise as possible, high build quality, great responsiveness and tactile feedback. These things are what made the best games great, when the hardware allowed for them.
^^ You guys have restored my faith in humanity. Thank you.
^^ I've been hammering that particular drum for a long time now myself. Glad to see I'm not the only one out there who feels this way!
Felix Lighter
Member
Is there really a push for VR for consoles? Oculus Rift looks very cool but I wouldn't want a whole major platform centered around VR and it's not something any console manufacturer could half ass and expect it to be supported by developers. It's too much of an investment to be an optional peripheral for a console. I think it works best aimed at a niche enthusiast market and the open platform of the PC is where I think VR will stay until the technology is cheap.
Kai Dracon
Writing a dinosaur space opera symphony
People want more of the same but want the feeling of novelty when they get bored. People don't like it when novelty takes them out of their comfort zone. I suppose this is pretty much human nature.
Whether or not Durango and Orbis pitch themselves at a particular entrenched enthusiast gamer audience that only wants iterations of current popular PS3 and 360 games, depends on whether Sony and MS think that's where the most money is to be made, I would figure.
Do their own internal analyses suggest there's a future in the $60 AAA game that largely focuses on production values and visual technology to sell itself? No way to tell, though I would venture to guess that the future of that market is still solid enough that the their consoles will be largely predicated on serving it. Kinda doubt however that the "gimmicks" so many are tired of are actually going away. There's been just enough bite in reaction to them to suggest there's a future there, though it will probably take more generations of technical and software refinement before they come into their own.
Prepare to spend another generation angry, my friend.
Whether or not Durango and Orbis pitch themselves at a particular entrenched enthusiast gamer audience that only wants iterations of current popular PS3 and 360 games, depends on whether Sony and MS think that's where the most money is to be made, I would figure.
Do their own internal analyses suggest there's a future in the $60 AAA game that largely focuses on production values and visual technology to sell itself? No way to tell, though I would venture to guess that the future of that market is still solid enough that the their consoles will be largely predicated on serving it. Kinda doubt however that the "gimmicks" so many are tired of are actually going away. There's been just enough bite in reaction to them to suggest there's a future there, though it will probably take more generations of technical and software refinement before they come into their own.
Prepare to spend another generation angry, my friend.
But planes and cars have still probably had advancements and additions to the cockpit and dashboard respectively over the years. The Dual Shock and 360 controller are functional, but so was the SNES pad for the games of its era.
You could definitely say that analog sticks were necessitated by the jump from 2D to 3D, but why did Nintendo see the need for two more face buttons on the SNES? Or shoulder buttons? Was there any particular thing that necessitated analog triggers or the Dual Shock's pressure-sensitive buttons? People eventually designed great games around all that stuff.
Current console games may not necessitate a touch screen, and I don't doubt that software alone could still innovate with today's controllers, but that doesn't mean hardware interface innovation won't also push gaming forward. Look at handheld gaming before the DS and handheld gaming now (even just looking at the DS, 3DS, and Vita alone) -- way too many great games that are impossible without touch (or at least a pointer of some kind). I don't see the harm in adding that kind of interaction to console games if nothing else is being sacrificed.
Just a few off examples, but I'm actually impressed at how some developers have decided to use the Vita's back touch as a sort of cursor or pointer. That alone would be an interesting addition to console gaming to bring it somewhat closer to mouse-like precision (not for aiming in shooters but other uses). Imagine for instance what a touch screen could do for RPGs, team sports games, or tactical games. Hell, they might even be able to finally get RTSs to work on consoles.
Shadow of the BEAST
Banned
I have no problem with new innovative controller methods. If it actually is an improvment as well as being innovative. But more importantly, its more than just something that looks cool to nongamers in commercials.
I tend to think that whether or not some new input "innovation" is worthwihle or not depends on how many developers give a shit.
Throw enough third party developers at an input method, and someone will eventually make a really good game on it, a Kirby Canvas Curse moment so to speak. If it's good enough, others will follow.
Throw enough third party developers at an input method, and someone will eventually make a really good game on it, a Kirby Canvas Curse moment so to speak. If it's good enough, others will follow.
