Let's all think about this. Nintendo Wii has offered a completely new way to play, and Nintendo's hit the jackpot. They've finally found success over their competitors with their new system. That may last, it may not. But, Nintendo has attempted to change and revolutionize gaming, but the question is, will it go through?
If the Nintendo Wii truly does succeed in changing gaming, what'll we see next generation? Nunhucks and remotes for Sony and Microsoft? Motion sensing peripherals? Etc?
Discuss.
VR Headsets? Meh.
Optional motion sensing.
No non-standard input device has ever been widespread among the gaming populace. Optional motion sensing would recieve little support, just like other optional controllers, optional hard drives and modems etc
I think it depends entirely on just how much Wii wins by, if it does. If Wii ends up with 80-90% of the market (taking into account the new users it will attract) then I think we'll definately see motion control as the new standard. It's happened numerous times with previous controllers and I don't see why this would be any different.
My guess is systems that can have more variability. Such as having a full functioning X-box 360 and Wii in the same system. So that 3rd partys are never really alienated one way or another.
And also like speedy said, depends on what wins this generation. Innovation of today is the normal for tomorrow.
I'd also like to see a shift back to 2D games because IMO they never hit their climax before 3D came. But thats just me.
I wouldn't like to see a shift back to 2D, but I'd love to see a lot more 2D games made for home consoles. I'm thrilled they're constantly made for the DS, despite it's graphical capability.
If more games like DKC2 came out, it'd be heaven.
[quote=Zeta;524665]2D games on today's home consoles could be ****ing huge.
.
It just goes to show you that good graphics isnt everything as long as you can reach out to the casual gamer in a way with something inovative and doesnt cost that much
I'm probably the only one that's bothered with the idea of companies focused on reaching everyone and leaving out (or "specializing" in) the decades of gamers from the past.
Call me presumptuous but I think you are included in "everyone."
Yeah, I am. The point was, if you would reread it, that I'm concerned about companies focused on reaching everyone, "everyone" being nobody in particular, therefore not "specializing" in hardcore gamers. Those who have been gaming for years may very well have fun with simple control layouts or motion sensing-- that's not the point. What I mean (or implied previously) is that companies won't be focused on the millions (or billions?) of gamers that already exist, making gaming a casual thing that anyone can join in on, leaving skill kind of on the table. I like skilled players, the ones that completely own someone else on games.
Just one more step in killing the arcade :)
[quote=Misoxeny;525594]Exactly. I don't like games that you just pick up and play easily as much as games you have to learn, and practice to get good at.
Spoiler: the best games are both.
Meh I think the GTA knock off games are casual. Perhaps not in control but certainly in appeal. Then again I dont really consider a game hardcore if it has a steep learning curve and complicated controls. I can only think of a few games that fit that bill like Splinter Cell.
I have to agree that they're casual in appeal. But the final product always feels like a hardcore-like experience. If anything, it's one of the few hardcore-types that appeal to a broad market, if you know what I'm saying.
I guess. Still though casual in my books.
And also the same could be siad for the opposite. If a game hardcore in controls supposadly means its for the hardcore player than what about all the games casual or non-gamers have never heard of but contain easy controls? I've unfortunately never played it but Katamari certainly seems that way to me. Or Monkey Ball for instance. Pretty easy controls but you wouldnt find it among a casual gamer's small gaming library.
I just dont like it when people say a game is hardcore or not based on controls alone. Its like all those "Nintendo is kiddy cos theres no blood" arguments.
I'm not sure who said hardcore games are built on controls alone... as that's fairly wrong. There's just certain games that will always appeal to the hardcore. However, Katamari and the like I would not say are hardcore. Rather, niche. Hardcore is certainly a niche, but a completely separate one. I just don't think they fall under the same umbrella.
Fate seemed to imply it.
I agree actually, katamari is more a niche. It was the only real example I could think of at the time of a game with simple controls and a title a casual gamer would not have heard of. I think Monkey Ball is a better example.
I think it's more because Monkey Ball sucks LOL
Lies. Vicious lies.
I always figured a game that's considered "hardcore" was a game that was usually not seen in the mainstream gamers library. But personally, my view on hardcore is more of how a person plays a game. There's tons of games out there that everyone plays, but only about a quarter of those people are actually above and beyond at playing them. Iono...that's always been my view on what it means to be hardcore.