Wright believes the Wii is worthy of the "next-gen" moniker because it's, well, getting another generation to play games. "The only next gen system I've seen is the Wii – the PS3 and the Xbox 360 feel like better versions of the last, but pretty much the same game with incremental improvement," says Wright. "But the Wii feels like a major jump – not that the graphics are more powerful, but that it hits a completely different demographic." We know Peter Molyneux thinks differently, but we'll leave them be until we've recreated them in Spore and set them at each other's throats.
Wright goes on to reiterate that Wii owners will be able to tinker with everything sim Spore, presumably after work on the PC and DS versions has been completed (sometime in the next 6 months, as Wright stated elsewhere). Click the "Read" link to learn more about Wright's stance on education in games, society's blame game and "direct neural connections."
(Page 1) Reader Comments
Now get him to be quiet so he can finish Spore.
Reply
Reply
150 i call 175 max
Buying in at 184
Everyone of the new systems is next gen, they are just next gen in their own way.
Reply
Given the complexity of Spore, while it may not require a high-end video card (as it's more procedural based, instead of art resource-based), it's probably going to need a good CPU and good amount of RAM.
Likewise, the version of Spore for Wii may be radically different from the PC original.
But... only time will tell, I guess.
awesome, it's like a 2001 gamecube game, just on my pc!
Reply
Is like a game of 2 duck taped gamecubes in your PC! Wow
Reply
open your eyes! =)
Is that for me?
Dude I think your princess is in another castle.
Spore is going to be cool but I don't agree with him.
All this Next-gen talk is stupid, first there is no "next-gen" is "current-gen" and the way the Next-gen concept change is just stunning
New systems suppose to improve the game experience that goes from controls to graphics and that’s it, everything from the Wii to the Ps3 do stuff their predecessors didn't.
The only improvements in the Wii are the controllers.
And now for my two bits on topic. If hitting another demographic is "next-gen" then I'm going to have to say the PS3 is "next-gen" since it's trying to hit videophiles and technophiles. Whereas the Wii hits old people.
Reply
Too bad Sony can't satisfy in a single audience.
that's it. you are turning into a fanboy... I'll just need some garlic and bat wings...
I'm working on several texts at the same time.
Reply
You can get nostalgia from playing all 3 systems, as each seem to provide some classic feel to them in their games, rather it be the present, or past VC, arcade, PSN classic downloads.
So really this hole blog post is just a matter of one man's opinion, which I disagree with.
Reply
Wii Sports
Zelda
Tony Hawk Downhill Jam (great game)
Resident Evil 4 (so much better now)
Sonic and the Secret Rings
The Godfather
Metal Slug Anthology
Mortal Kombat Armageddon
Mario Strikers Charged
Super Paper Mario
All A+ games (except MK). And plenty more A+ games to come:
Mario Kart Wii
Metroid Prime 3
Super Mario Galaxy
Battalion Wars 2
DBZ Tenkaichi 3 (Wifi FTW)
Super Smash Bros Brawl
Manhunt 2
Nights Journey of Dreams
Geometry Wars: Galaxies
Medal of Honor Heroes 2
Resident Evil: The Umbrella Chronicles
And guess what, not 1 of those is a 'minigame compilation'. I am sick of dickheads using the Minigame arguement when it has NO merit.
out of that whole list there is only 2 games i would even consider playing that arent on one of my other consoles. them being zelda and metroid.
@"the game master" right above this comment, wii connect doesnt make me feel very connected, it's no match to either the 360 or ps3 in that department or any other area for that matter. 1 of the main reasons I, and many other people have bought the new consoles as the years have passed is to see how great the graphics are. when i look at that screen shot up there i see graphics no better than a PSP. the other 2 next gen consoles have alot more value to them, they can both do so many more things than the wii. and as a grown person with kids that is what i look for. not only can i play great games on my 360 and soon to be ps3(in the next month) but i can also watch the newest high def movies and connect to my computer wirelessly, and more. hell wii cant even play a dvd, the others have saved me a lot of space in my entertainment center.
only thing the wii has is a controller that i cant stand any way. when i come home from work why would i want to wave something around when i can sit back on my couch and sitt still with the controller in my hand. i think it's great that they target little kids, they have a ton of games in your list that are perfect for kids, also targeting the elderly and helping them stay fit is another great thing. but for those of us that are not children and have yet to need a walker, i would rather get more bang for my buck.
Xbox Live wasn't generational, it was around with the first Xbox. Hard drives? Xbox. Wireless play? Gamecube, Xbox, PS2, all of them had it. Nothing but the graphics has drastically improved with these systems. AI is still predictable as ever, including critically acclaimed AI like in R6: Vegas and Gears (I've said this time and time again, if you can't see me through glass, your AI is retarded). Physics hasn't moved past the unnatural ragdoll people and absent friction worlds. The processing power just gets handed into more eye-candy.
While it isn't a numerically huge change, the Wii is a ton more than just an overclocked predicessor. The remote actually does stuff. Zack and Wiki has creative impelemntations of the remote and Metroid Prime: Corruption does amazing things with it.
The 360 and PS3 took the easy road of traditional design. While it is a different path, and one that breeds its own success, there isn't much different between them and their predicessors beyond cosmetic upgrades. The Wii actually changed things.
Reply
I also happen to agree with you.
All the PS2, Xbox and Gamecube did was up the graphics/performance standard. In fact, that's all gaming consoles have ever really done.
How does targeting the casual demographic make a console worthy of the "next gen" title?
This guy might want to do some market research, he might find that casual gamers don't buy games and therefore his "next gen" consoles will have piss poor software sales.
The N64 added an analog stick to the controller.
The SNES expanded the functionality of the controller.
The NES gave us the D-pad.
The real generational advancements came from HOW we played the game. The visual improvements were incidental. The PS3 and 360 lack the same impactful changes the previous generations enjoyed. They simply do not change how we play games, the Wii does change it. Hence why the hardware sales just aren't terribly stellar for the 360 and PS3. At this same timeframe in the PS2s life, it sold double what the 360 has on the market. The only console to show that level of sales is the Wii.
Like it or not, the Wii offers a tangible change over last generation and the market is responding by buying it.
and I guess Nintendo couldn't do anythign last gen so they had to go for motion sensing, which, let's not be stupid, has been on the market for a few years (arcades) so it isnt that revolutionary
"They simply do not change how we play games"
So you are teling me that the upgrade from the 3D worlds from back on the PSone era to the PS3/360 hasn't had an impact?
"the Wii does change it. Hence why the hardware sales just aren't terribly stellar for the 360 and PS3."
If its ebcause of that, I would still see people on teh arcades, something that doesn't happen
"At this same timeframe in the PS2s life, it sold double what the 360 has on the market. The only console to show that level of sales is the Wii."
guess what, the Wii is the only console this time around that was closest to the price of a PS2, hence why the high amount of sales, and let's face it, the PS2 had a MUCH better gaming library than the Wii does right now, that was one of the main reasons of the success of the PS2.
"Like it or not, the Wii offers a tangible change over last generation and the market is responding by buying it."
Like it or not, the Wii hasn't changed the gaming world, sorry to burst your bubble, but motion sensing has been out for a while, hell, even Konami has filed patents for motion sensing before, and I meal REAL motion sensing
http://www.freepatentsonline.com/20030109298.html
I mean, its not just graphics that have changed this generation, is gameplay too, the worlds are more vast, the interaction between players is much greater than it ever was before, but I guess Nintendo is showing their arrogance once again, just skipping on actual upgrades, and just going the easy route.
If you are going to say that the PS3, 360 suck, then so be it, but to say that the Wii has been groundbreaking and that the PS3/360 have not brought any "next-gen" features to the table is just pure crap, Wright is just beating on his horse, he wants his game to sell, hence why his idiotic comment, sorry to burst your bubbles Wii fans
The market is responding because of price point and marketing and if you can't tell there's a tangible difference between the last gen consoles and the PS3 and 360, then you have no business owning a console to begin with. The 360 brought the "home" or "menu" button to the console as well as a constant GUI and the 1st standard wireless controller. It also introduced the detachable hard drive, achievements and the LIVE marketplace including free downloadable demos. Does the Wii have all that? No tangible difference...
I mean, what's up with HDTV's? They aren't the next generation of televisions! All they offer is higher resolution and better picture, they don't change the way we watch TV!
And what the crap is up with PC's? I've basically interacted with my computer the same since Windows 3.1! The mouse and keyboard is sooooo last century! There's no tangible difference!
So let's all watch our black and white TV's, kick back listening to LP's and analog radio tuners while trying to log onto joystiq on our 486 computers- because there's no tangible difference...
However, I can easily debunk those examples.
"I mean, what's up with HDTV's? They aren't the next generation of televisions! All they offer is higher resolution and better picture, they don't change the way we watch TV!"
They don't. Nothing tangible has been added that only HDTV can offer above a crisper picture. I never said I didn't like it, but the fact we use 16x9 1080p screens now doesn't give directors and writers additional tools to enhance the experience of watching television shows or movies. They already film in larger resolutions than our TVs can handle.
"And what the crap is up with PC's? I've basically interacted with my computer the same since Windows 3.1! The mouse and keyboard is sooooo last century! There's no tangible difference!"
Mouse and keyboard, yes, however I never did say they were generational leaps. Don't put words in my mouth (hence the Straw Man). Win95 is a generational leap over Win 3.1. Increased user friendliness and networking capabilities that Win 3.1 doesn't have. Broadband can't be done on Win 3.1 nor can it actually access and use the World Wide Web. Hence, jump. WinXP and thus far Vista aren't genrational jumps over 95, just improve the existing functionality.
"So let's all watch our black and white TV's, kick back listening to LP's and analog radio tuners while trying to log onto joystiq on our 486 computers- because there's no tangible difference..."
Color television gave directors additional tools to advance their trade over black and white. Try doing Fantasia, which heavily uses colors as well as sound, on B&W.; CDs over LPs changed the form factor to allow portability of music as well as drastically improved durability (however, at the cost of quality, LPs still have greater music clarity because analog is superior to digital in this sense). Digital radio tuners improved safety while driving. 486 computers can't get on the internet nor produce 3D visuals.
"Like it or not, the Wii hasn't changed the gaming world, sorry to burst your bubble, but motion sensing has been out for a while, hell, even Konami has filed patents for motion sensing before, and I meal REAL motion sensing"
And where is it? Being in development and being in my hands are two different things. Nintendo made the jump because they provided it to the market, Konami didn't because it is sitting God knows where. Besides, a patent means a design idea. There very well may not be a working prototype given how patent law works.
Get back to the meat of the debate - explain to me how adding more pixels makes the game more entertaining. It is established that is all the 360 and PS3 do over their predicessors, you didn't even bother to argue it. Keep the logical fallacies out this time, makes you look bad.
i agree with you mostly, their all next-gen in their own way, the importance is that there is actually movement forward (and if you compare strictly in-company, Wii is a great leap forward beyond GC. Sans the new controller, Wii is what GC should have been with the actual Firmware, online capabilities, and DLC)
While you praise the Wii for it's new fangled controller, you fail to recognize that it is the first console successor to NOT bring a markable (or tangible if you will) increase in performance. You were right in that the Wii is what the GCN should've been- heck the Wii is what the GCN COULD'VE been had Ninty just sold a controller add on.
While the SNES had a few new buttons, the controller layout remained fairly standard to the NES's, the biggest upgrade was the graphics and performance, which was a big deal.
The N64 brought about a brand new controller and really did change how we interacted with video games, but again it was the power of the machine that made 3D possible.
The GCN controller simply added another analog stick, no revolutionary control features. It was more like the SNES compared to the NES. But no would argue that it was far suerior to the N64. It now had an optical drive (though not a standard one- which sucked) and markedly improved graphics and performance.
The Wii arguably has taken a step BACKWARD in controls as without waggle it is over simplified (not all games use waggle). And of course it offers very little power and graphical upgrades. So Id say that while the Wii may have a new input device making a very "tangible difference" from the last gen, it has broken the long standing definition of what makes new hardware "new".
As I mentioned before, the 360 brought a host of features to the console that weren't found in the previous gen. The home or menu button, the constant OS, the guide menu, friends lists, gamerscore and achievements, a LIVE marketplace, downloadable demos, a portable HDD and standard wireless controllers. It also upgraded it's controller layout and ergonomics. While not a whole new controller like the N64 compared to the SNES, the 360 pad is certainly a marked improvement in functionality over the Xbox S type. But the 360 also brought what every new generation of hardware should bring and has brought in the past- a markedly more powerful machine that made new graphics and new AI possible. The Wii has not.
So I'll give you the whole controller debate. Great, I can now waggle. I personally don't WANT to flail around when I play games, but to each his own. However to claim that the Wii is the only real next gen machine because of this is ridiculous. If I add a pwerglove to the NES it does not make it comparable to a SNES. If I add a 3D mouse to my 5 year old computer, it does not make it comparable with brand new PCs. If I add a voice control system to my ancient tube TV, it does not make it better than an HDTV with an old fashioned button remote. Input devices are but one part of a console.
I'm glad you like thw Wii, but don't downplay the other consoles out there simply because they don't have waggle. Not only would you be forgetting the PS3 is capable of motion sensing, you also neglect the long history of console successors. Not EVERY generation of technology is going to be revolutionary. Some with be steps while others might be leaps. NES to SNES was a step. SNES to N64 was a leap. N64 to GCN was a step. I'd say GCN to Wii was a step as it improved only part of the machine rather than offer a complete package. If the Wii had the power of the 360 or PS3, then I would say it was a leap. The 360 and PS3 are steps as well, just on the other side of the equation.
Remember that the PS2 didn't change a darn thing with the controller from the PS1 days, but I didn't hear anyone complain that it wasn't a true next gen console for ONLY improving the grpahics and performance...
Reply
profit and great/quality games and game systems are two different things.
Reply