2008 Woodie Awards
Next generation's gameplay
Cody Bozarth
Issue date: 4/2/08 Section: Opinion
Here we are, well into the current console cycle. Many people have ditched their PS2s and GameCubes in favor of the new models. When you play games like "Halo 3," "Assassin's Creed" or "Drake's Fortune," you look at the screen and say "Ooh! Purdy!" But as LucasArts pointed out, regarding their new shooter "Fracture," we have next-gen graphics, but what about next-gen game play?
"Fracture," due to appear on the PS3 and Xbox 360, is pushing the hardware limitations of these consoles to provide better gameplay in regard to the destructive nature of the ground under your feet. Whether or not this is true will be revealed in time, but the interesting question that it poses is something worth asking.
How have the current-gen consoles changed the way we play games? Let's just go ahead and ignore the Wii on this one (sorry, fanboys), because Nintendo chose to sacrifice hardware capability for innovative controlling. But even with the horsepower consoles are capable of, that itself hasn't lead to innovation.
There is only one exception: "Dead Rising." That game couldn't have been made until this generation. The scary thing about "Dead Rising" is those zombies are only dangerous if they swarm around you, and that's how zombies are supposed to be anyway. I hate super-zombies.
But getting back to the point, its gameplay depends on the 360's ability to display that many sprites. Other than that, can anyone think of any other example? (OK, maybe Will Wright's "Spore," but that's not here, is it?)
Games sure look a good deal better than they ever have, and it also seems like online death matches run smoother and have better connections. But does that really mean games that will be coming out this year couldn't have been made on a PS2?
Before you go jumping down my throat with game titles, think about this. Just because a game can be filled with more crap, doesn't mean that it has innovative gameplay. "Oblivion" was much better than its counterpart, "Morrowind," because it had more space to allow every character to talk in dialogue rather than forcing players to read through countless text boxes. Along those same lines, I'll bet $10 that "Metal Gear Solid 4" doesn't have near the amount of Codec conversations that previous versions had. And, sure, your RPGs can be a lot longer and contain more items, magics and weaponry. But that doesn't mean the gameplay has changed.
Every generation has altered the way we play games, at least in minor ways. Consider the static screen games becoming side-scrolling games; 2D to 3D graphics; the rise of the first-person shooter. The online death match games. We've come a long way. But is this it? Did technology plateau like everyone said it would?
Well, as Nintendo has shown us, no. Even substandard hardware can alter the mores of the industry. All that's needed is some innovation and a good idea, like a mall filled with zombies standing shoulder-to-shoulder.
"Fracture," due to appear on the PS3 and Xbox 360, is pushing the hardware limitations of these consoles to provide better gameplay in regard to the destructive nature of the ground under your feet. Whether or not this is true will be revealed in time, but the interesting question that it poses is something worth asking.
How have the current-gen consoles changed the way we play games? Let's just go ahead and ignore the Wii on this one (sorry, fanboys), because Nintendo chose to sacrifice hardware capability for innovative controlling. But even with the horsepower consoles are capable of, that itself hasn't lead to innovation.
There is only one exception: "Dead Rising." That game couldn't have been made until this generation. The scary thing about "Dead Rising" is those zombies are only dangerous if they swarm around you, and that's how zombies are supposed to be anyway. I hate super-zombies.
But getting back to the point, its gameplay depends on the 360's ability to display that many sprites. Other than that, can anyone think of any other example? (OK, maybe Will Wright's "Spore," but that's not here, is it?)
Games sure look a good deal better than they ever have, and it also seems like online death matches run smoother and have better connections. But does that really mean games that will be coming out this year couldn't have been made on a PS2?
Before you go jumping down my throat with game titles, think about this. Just because a game can be filled with more crap, doesn't mean that it has innovative gameplay. "Oblivion" was much better than its counterpart, "Morrowind," because it had more space to allow every character to talk in dialogue rather than forcing players to read through countless text boxes. Along those same lines, I'll bet $10 that "Metal Gear Solid 4" doesn't have near the amount of Codec conversations that previous versions had. And, sure, your RPGs can be a lot longer and contain more items, magics and weaponry. But that doesn't mean the gameplay has changed.
Every generation has altered the way we play games, at least in minor ways. Consider the static screen games becoming side-scrolling games; 2D to 3D graphics; the rise of the first-person shooter. The online death match games. We've come a long way. But is this it? Did technology plateau like everyone said it would?
Well, as Nintendo has shown us, no. Even substandard hardware can alter the mores of the industry. All that's needed is some innovation and a good idea, like a mall filled with zombies standing shoulder-to-shoulder.
Be the first to comment on this story