Nerd post:
I've been thinking recently about the game systems. Specifically whether or not the Wii, in the end, is worthwhile. Because, yes, it's going to change the way to interact with games, but what about the games themselves? The system is launching with Twilight Princess. Yes, this is awesome. But it also might be Nintendo inadvertantly shooting themselves in the foot. If it is the game that its been made out to be (which, with a four year development cycle, and a credo that the game has to be "120%", it should be), then how do you follow it up?
Aye, that's the rub. If you launch with what might be the system's best game, then three years down the line, you're going to obviously notice that the system really won't be getting the use that you'd hope for. There's going to be nothing to look forward to. Nintendo's got a short term plan here -- impress 'em early. Blow 'em away with something new. But in the aftermath, what will there be? More of the same shit from before, only slightly prettier, and I see the system's control getting gimmicky as things become more even between the consoles, with shared ports and whatnot. Will it be worth it to pick up the Wii's version of a Splinter Cell game just because you'll have to physically "throw" an item to a corner to distract a guard? Or will it be easier to pick up a 360 or PS3 version of the game, playing with sharper graphics, an online component, and more, for the same price? It's a problem everyone will face.
Meanwhile, Nintendo's not exactly looking so hot in 2007. You'll get another Mario game or two, yes, and something kooky -- but otherwise, things like Gears of War, Lair, MGS 4, GTA IV, and a lot of original properties will be looking at the systems with a bigger playground for them to mess around in, rather than a system that is barely a marginal upgrade processing-wise with a control scheme that is very specific. Nintendo is going to be in the same boat that the other two are quickly heading towards -- their first-party output is going to be their lifejacket in shark-infested waters. And while Mario LOOKS fun, they've been riding the same style of platforming for him since the N64. At some point, people are going to get tired of it. Zelda's going to be a monster game, but following it up is going to either require the type of ingenuity that made Majora's Mask worthwhile (and even that essentially split fans down the middle) or be yet another, just-as-big jump in the series.
Anyway, enough Nintendo. Moving onto Sony, and perhaps the most blunder-filled launch since the PlayStation 2, the PlayStation 3. This is a company that can't launch a system correctly -- but the important part, the year after period, still looks strong for them. Yes, the hardware's wonky right now -- 1080i isn't supported by their big first-party game, Resistance, meaning the game will downgrade to 480p if your HDTV doesn't do 720p, the native resolution. But oddly enough, the biggest knock on the system is Blu-Ray. I honestly think, while discs are still the main delivery format we're getting our games on, it is a smart choice to go with the best they can give us. What most people are pissed about is the lack of choice over things. Which I don't get. As Lair is quickly getting to the 25-gig single-layer limit, it seems like there is no other choice that would work. 1080p resolution requires larger size files, right? And even with compression and optimization, the files are still quite substantial. It's not a bad thing to have some cutting-edge technology. Remember, the first games on PS2 were CD, but the switch to DVD-based gaming came within months of the launch, because the developers needed the space. The claim of "its just for movies" was a knock against DVDs back in the PS2 launch period, too.
Look at it as though you're an architect. You'd rather have a larger plot of land to build on, because then you can fit more of your designs and add as ideas come along. Smaller plots may force you to be innovative, yes, but you'd still need to cut some stuff out. Innovation is nice for an architect, and if you prefer the smaller area, go for it. But you'd still say, "if I only had another 50 feet of space, I could put a really nice piece of work that would go perfectly for this place."
So what's the problem with the PS3? Half a grand for a low-end system IS ridiculous on too many levels. And given the amount of money poured into this thing, it'll be two years before a price drop is even close to negotiable with the bean counters. And for a game system that has lost a good 70% of their third-party exclusives, that makes the price point more a burden than anything else.
Finally, the Xbox 360. I see a couple major problems with it: the system is perhaps TOO American. It aims right towards the perfect demographic, yes, but it really only touches that demographic. While a lot of college students may love having a big selection of FPS, sports, and Tom Clancy games, they've managed to fault on most every other genre of games. RPGs for the system invariably suck; Fable was a hugely ambitious... failure. They have no real flagships outside of the Halo (and now, Gears of War) franchises, while both Sony and Nintendo can at least lay claim to games in several genres as "flagship" titles (RPGs like Final Fantasy and Zelda, platformers like Ratchet And Clank and Mario, racers like Gran Turismo and Mario Kart). Yes, there's Lost Oddysey and Blue Dragon coming to the 360, but something tells me the hype will be more than the final output. I really doubt the creator of Final Fantasy is the sole reason the games turned out continuously well. And 90% of his team's still at Square. Microsoft has made a lot of individual grabs in the last few years, but they don't have the whole reason why these games turn out so well -- the whole team. The last truly complete team they grabbed was Bungie, which you could label as gaming's Pixar... if they only made something other than Halo.
Maybe Bill should look at Steve Jobs' business style a little more than his operating system. Might pay off better for everyone involved in the company.
Anyway, it's too early to see for sure who's made the biggest mistakes. That'll be next Christmas. Sony could pull it out and prove they were right; Microsoft could actually surprise and prove to be more than a niche system for frat boys; or Nintendo's gamble could have more staying power than it looks. It'll be interesting to observe, that's for sure.
I've been thinking recently about the game systems. Specifically whether or not the Wii, in the end, is worthwhile. Because, yes, it's going to change the way to interact with games, but what about the games themselves? The system is launching with Twilight Princess. Yes, this is awesome. But it also might be Nintendo inadvertantly shooting themselves in the foot. If it is the game that its been made out to be (which, with a four year development cycle, and a credo that the game has to be "120%", it should be), then how do you follow it up?
Aye, that's the rub. If you launch with what might be the system's best game, then three years down the line, you're going to obviously notice that the system really won't be getting the use that you'd hope for. There's going to be nothing to look forward to. Nintendo's got a short term plan here -- impress 'em early. Blow 'em away with something new. But in the aftermath, what will there be? More of the same shit from before, only slightly prettier, and I see the system's control getting gimmicky as things become more even between the consoles, with shared ports and whatnot. Will it be worth it to pick up the Wii's version of a Splinter Cell game just because you'll have to physically "throw" an item to a corner to distract a guard? Or will it be easier to pick up a 360 or PS3 version of the game, playing with sharper graphics, an online component, and more, for the same price? It's a problem everyone will face.
Meanwhile, Nintendo's not exactly looking so hot in 2007. You'll get another Mario game or two, yes, and something kooky -- but otherwise, things like Gears of War, Lair, MGS 4, GTA IV, and a lot of original properties will be looking at the systems with a bigger playground for them to mess around in, rather than a system that is barely a marginal upgrade processing-wise with a control scheme that is very specific. Nintendo is going to be in the same boat that the other two are quickly heading towards -- their first-party output is going to be their lifejacket in shark-infested waters. And while Mario LOOKS fun, they've been riding the same style of platforming for him since the N64. At some point, people are going to get tired of it. Zelda's going to be a monster game, but following it up is going to either require the type of ingenuity that made Majora's Mask worthwhile (and even that essentially split fans down the middle) or be yet another, just-as-big jump in the series.
Anyway, enough Nintendo. Moving onto Sony, and perhaps the most blunder-filled launch since the PlayStation 2, the PlayStation 3. This is a company that can't launch a system correctly -- but the important part, the year after period, still looks strong for them. Yes, the hardware's wonky right now -- 1080i isn't supported by their big first-party game, Resistance, meaning the game will downgrade to 480p if your HDTV doesn't do 720p, the native resolution. But oddly enough, the biggest knock on the system is Blu-Ray. I honestly think, while discs are still the main delivery format we're getting our games on, it is a smart choice to go with the best they can give us. What most people are pissed about is the lack of choice over things. Which I don't get. As Lair is quickly getting to the 25-gig single-layer limit, it seems like there is no other choice that would work. 1080p resolution requires larger size files, right? And even with compression and optimization, the files are still quite substantial. It's not a bad thing to have some cutting-edge technology. Remember, the first games on PS2 were CD, but the switch to DVD-based gaming came within months of the launch, because the developers needed the space. The claim of "its just for movies" was a knock against DVDs back in the PS2 launch period, too.
Look at it as though you're an architect. You'd rather have a larger plot of land to build on, because then you can fit more of your designs and add as ideas come along. Smaller plots may force you to be innovative, yes, but you'd still need to cut some stuff out. Innovation is nice for an architect, and if you prefer the smaller area, go for it. But you'd still say, "if I only had another 50 feet of space, I could put a really nice piece of work that would go perfectly for this place."
So what's the problem with the PS3? Half a grand for a low-end system IS ridiculous on too many levels. And given the amount of money poured into this thing, it'll be two years before a price drop is even close to negotiable with the bean counters. And for a game system that has lost a good 70% of their third-party exclusives, that makes the price point more a burden than anything else.
Finally, the Xbox 360. I see a couple major problems with it: the system is perhaps TOO American. It aims right towards the perfect demographic, yes, but it really only touches that demographic. While a lot of college students may love having a big selection of FPS, sports, and Tom Clancy games, they've managed to fault on most every other genre of games. RPGs for the system invariably suck; Fable was a hugely ambitious... failure. They have no real flagships outside of the Halo (and now, Gears of War) franchises, while both Sony and Nintendo can at least lay claim to games in several genres as "flagship" titles (RPGs like Final Fantasy and Zelda, platformers like Ratchet And Clank and Mario, racers like Gran Turismo and Mario Kart). Yes, there's Lost Oddysey and Blue Dragon coming to the 360, but something tells me the hype will be more than the final output. I really doubt the creator of Final Fantasy is the sole reason the games turned out continuously well. And 90% of his team's still at Square. Microsoft has made a lot of individual grabs in the last few years, but they don't have the whole reason why these games turn out so well -- the whole team. The last truly complete team they grabbed was Bungie, which you could label as gaming's Pixar... if they only made something other than Halo.
Maybe Bill should look at Steve Jobs' business style a little more than his operating system. Might pay off better for everyone involved in the company.
Anyway, it's too early to see for sure who's made the biggest mistakes. That'll be next Christmas. Sony could pull it out and prove they were right; Microsoft could actually surprise and prove to be more than a niche system for frat boys; or Nintendo's gamble could have more staying power than it looks. It'll be interesting to observe, that's for sure.
VIEW 6 of 6 COMMENTS
Did she choose to have the baby? Well, yes. Kinda. I notice that her gynecologist never once offered her an option for anything else, though.
"Debbie runs her relationship"- and she's miserable. Until she gets, quite litterally, told what her place is. In which case she suddenly becomes much happier.
And as for Allison helping Ben grow up- there's a great message. Hold onto that jobless loser, honey. You love will surely save him. After all, presented with the challenges of parenthood, men always rise to the occasion, so don't let that be a concern when deciding the fate of you or your unborn child!
Oh- and "regular people"? The flawless blonde VJ?
Sorry, I stick to my guns on this one.